Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Saurabh

Regulars
  • Posts

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saurabh

  1. Dear, I assume that you intended to address the post to me (and not to Castle). I appreciate your interest and knowledge on Indian situation. However, I do not want to broaden the debate by discussing Nehru, Indian education, Agriculture efficiency, etc. Moreover, I agree with you mostly on your assessments there. My contention is still on the basic issue. Once we logically conclude on the basic issue, the debate can move to more complex issues. How is my idea unsupported, illogical, and immoral? I provided the support right? If you disagree with my support, please provide the support for your refutation (based on deductive logic). However, I am willing to debate that the idea is impractical. I think that is a fair concern from you. But, please do not mix morality with practicality. Lets us first establish morality. Then we will proceed to practicality. Feel free to challenge me.
  2. Friends, At this stage, let me also provide you a background for my initiating this debate. My country (India) is very densely populated. In certain areas, big parts of lands have been acquired by landlords (often using unfair means). Hence, lot of poor people have been marginalized - as their only talent was to plow the land- and now they can only do so by paying huge rents to landlords. This has led to class protests and violence. This violence has spread to about 30% of India. I am not happy with this situation, and being an AR fan, I want to understand what part of the poor's plight is due to their own choices, and what part is due to improper distribution of what is produced in the society. This will help me take a fair stance. Now, below are my definitions: Rights: Rights on something are moral/legal claims on that thing Morality: Rationality Origin of rights/claims: All rights emanate a basic right - an individuals right to live as a rational being Below is my philosophical position: Reality exists as an objective absolute. Man's mind is the only tool for him to know that reality and survive. Man should differentiate between right and wrong using his rational faculty to his best ability. My assertion again: Land (in its original state) needs to made common property. (I am eliminating other natural resources to focus the discussion. Moreover, what we can agree for land, we can also agree for Oil, etc). This is because that original-state Land was not earned by any human being. It was provided by nature. So, it is unfair to give someone a higher share than the other on that original-state land. A laborer can still work on that land and own the wheat he grows on that land. But, only when he gives the economic rent on that land to the community. No pvt individual can collect this rent, as he did nothing to earn this rent. However, if he made the land more fertile, say by using fertilizers, then he can properly claim the value that he added by putting fertilizers. I agree that it is difficult to separate the land output into these three parts: original-state value, landlord value-add by fertilizers, laborers labor in growing wheat. And I will tackle this very important issue as well - but once we make a logical conclusion on my basic issue. Now, here is my response to Castle's post: Castle, my disagreement with you statement is partial. Let me describe where I agree and where I disagree. Economics tells us that value created by plowing land is divided into three parts: Rent, Labor wages and Interest on Capital employed. My basic premise: One can only claim ownership on what one has earned. --> Individuals can claim wages and interest, but no individual can claim the rent (only to the extent it arises due to scarcity of land). If rent arises due to use of fertilizers, irrigation, etc; then once fairly claim that part of the rent. Now if you have read Economics, you will agree that Rent can arise due to any of the above-mentioned two reasons. And my point is that what right can an individual have over the fruits of an event that was not caused by him? I am not sure what is wrong with govt. owning land and hence collecting economic rent. Let us use deductice logic to debate this issue. Let use not use the argument that: State-property implies communism. Communism we all know is bad. Hence, state-property is bad. Let us not bring unneccasary concepts into discussion. Communism is a complex concept which has no implication for the moral question I have raised - and I would keep it out of this debate. Feel free to challenge me. So, can you tell me what is morally wrong with society (and hence govt.) owning land and collecting rent on it? You are assuming that my assertion implies use of force to allocate land. Let me clarify. In the society that I imagine, land will be common property. Now, the allocation of this land will be by free market principles - i.e. by bidding for rent. Whoever can bid the highest (since he believes he can utilize the resource most efficiently), gets allocated the land for a specified period. I am for minimalist govt. as well. Thanks for bringing this point up, as I think this very statement needs to be debated first. Let us focus only on land for the moment. So, your statement is: Land has no value prior to human action My assertion: Land may have no VALUE prior to human action. But, there is always some COST (rent) that needs to be paid for its use (in today's world where land is scarce). The payment for this cost (rent) needs to go to the society, not to an individual. Support: Land is scarce. Hence, if A uses land, it prevents B and others from using it. So, A must pay some rent to use the scarce resource. Since the rent arose due to scarcity, no one can claim more right on this part than others. Hence, everyone has equal right on this rent.
  3. I did support my claim in one of my earlier previous posts. Here is it again: Assertion: Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). Support: Since these things exist independent of any human action, no one person can have a bigger claim than the other over these things --> Equal rights to everyone for all for such things. Clarification: The equal right is only upon the original-state thing, but not on any value added by individual effort. Also your second point: 'Why man should have any rights at all', has already been covered in AR's book Virtue of selfishness (Man's rights), and I have no disagreement there .
  4. Jake, Let me try and define Rights: Rights on something are moral/legal claims on that thing. The definition that you provided is not a definition, but a statement about rights. I can elaborate if needed. You are currently defining rights by making certain debatable statements;and then asserting that the statements are true by definition. And then you are suggesting that since my statements are not as per the definition, hence they are wrong. I urge you to not think of any 'given' definition of rights, but to just thinks of rights simply as 'fair' claims; and then debate on the topic. Please do feel free to challenge me here.
  5. David, I am still not clear how you are refuting my claim and its morality. I would read again the references you provided. However, I am not seeking a detailed explication unless I am told the basics of the argument. Can you or anyone refute my basic claim - or accept it otherwise? Right now, I think, you are making lot of assertions about Rights - without giving a supporting justification. e.g how would you support your assertion: "First, rights do not emerge from the fact of being born?" Please respond in the context of the birth-right that I am talking about (to make the discussion more specific), because i agree with your asserition for most other rights . Also, I propose to discuss the Brick v. Hospital problem later - since it in no way interferes with our debate on my basic assertion - because we need to prove right or wrong based on logic, rather than on consequences.
  6. Dear Jake, I do not want to debate what Georgism says. I just want to debate my basic assertion. (Georgism, Bible, etc may say the same things, but those are irrelevant at this stage of the debate). Also, can you support and clarify your statements in your 1st para, as I did not understand them fully.
  7. I really like this statement, and I will think and respond to this a bit later. But I feel that we may be going into unneccasary complexity here - atoms are not the proper unit of analysis for this debate. But I will get back.
  8. But that is not what I am asserting...I am saying no man should have more right than the other man --> equal rights for the society. Also, I am not against property rights to the value a man can add to such 'original-state' things...
  9. Castle, I did not make my position amply clear. I agree with you that everthing around us in nature. And I do not want to imply common property on everything. My point is to abolish private property on things that exist without human action (e.g. uncultivated land). These things are what I mean by 'nature'. Also, I fully recognize pvt. property right on the wheat that was grown on land (if rent for the land was given to the society). I belive this is fair, because we rewarded individual effort as well the society for the use of its common property. Hence, if I deny individuals private property to land, that action IS NOT a denial of all property rights. Also, many thanks for the reference of the quote! But I disagree with it: Those who apply knowledge and effort to a resource can only have a moral right to the value added by them. But, is there any moral justification for their owning the full resource?
  10. David, Thanks for your post. I like your THINGS vs. ACTIONS split, and I would like to clarify my position using this split. Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). This is because no one can claim more right that the other man for such a thing - because such a thing existed independent of any human action. This is my moral defense. Now, if you disagree with this, may I ask you to give me the moral justification for your position? I will debate on the Brick and Hospital examples later because those involve more complex issues - as these Things have Action embedded in them, and it may be difficult to separate the two. However, I first seek agreement on a basic assertion: Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)?
  11. Friends, I admire Ayn Rand; and want to find out if she every took a position on having Private property rights on natural resources. I recently read about 'Georgism', and I am now convinced that it is not proper to allow private property in land. The assertion is that each human being has equal right to nature and its resources - by virtue of his being born in that nature. However, he is not at all entitled to any product of human effort, unless he earns it by his own effort. I am open to debating this assertion on the forum, if anyone is interested. Also, it will be helpful to know if anyone on the forum is aware of AR taking a position on this issue (I know that 'Ownership of Land' was discussed in the forum earlier, but I could not find references to AR's position on this issue). Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...