Some Questions About Private Property

[y_feldblum]

Do you have any actual questions or objections?

[Eric Mathis]

A study of Objectivism would permit one to read it as "the vast majority of property will be privately owned."

A study of Objectivism leads one to see that "all" = "vast majority"?

The nature of the government itself is entirely different under these two systems. If you cannot see that much, this discussion is more of a waste of time than I thought it was.

I'm interested in what Ayn Rand chose to include in her definition of capitalism. Her two criteria were 1) "the recognition of individual rights" and 2) that "all property is privately owned." Now why should we be loose with the second criterion and not with the first? How about recognizing the vast majority of individual rights but not all of them?

Edited May 5, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Oakes]

A study of Objectivism leads one to see that  "all" = "vast majority"?

Anyone other than Lew Rockwell readers can understand that the definition was identifying the essentials, and not giving the green light for anarchism.

I'm interested in what Ayn Rand chose to include in her definition of capitalism.  Her two criteria were 1) "the recognition of individual rights" and 2) that "all property is privately owned."  Now why should we be loose with the second criterion and not with the first?  How about recognizing the vast majority of individual rights but not all of them?

Now you are just playing with words.

[Oakes]

By the way, does this non-stop questioning of the trivial remind anyone else of Tom Robinson? Where has that guy been lately?

[Eric Mathis]

Anyone other than Lew Rockwell readers can understand that the definition was identifying the essentials, and not giving the green light for anarchism.

If one of the essentials of capitalism is that most property is privately owned, why not say "most" instead of "all"?

Now you are just playing with words.

The exactness of words is not play but one of the requirements of logical discourse.

[Oakes]

If one of the essentials of capitalism is that most property is privately owned, why not say "most" instead of "all"?

Since I'm not the one who wrote it, I can't answer you.

The exactness of words is not play but one of the requirements of logical discourse.

And this would be relevant if not for the fact that Ayn Rand repeatedly condemned anarchism. My only purpose in this thread is to reinforce what a mere cursory knowledge of her writings makes obvious. Now if you have nothing left to add to this discussion, we can end this.

[Eric Mathis]

Since I'm not the one who wrote it, I can't answer you.

Yes, I gathered that.

And this would be relevant if not for the fact that Ayn Rand repeatedly condemned anarchism. My only purpose in this thread is to reinforce what a mere cursory knowledge of her writings makes obvious. Now if you have nothing left to add to this discussion, we can end this.

In fact, you have not shown why a social system that operated exactly in accordance with Rand's definition of capitalism would necessarily be anarchistic.

[Oakes]

In fact, you have not shown why a social system that operated exactly in accordance with Rand's definition of capitalism would necessarily be anarchistic.

Post #19

[softwareNerd]

If one of the essentials of capitalism is that most property is privately owned, why not say "most" instead of "all"?

Because this is not the essential.

The context is this: how do different political systems vary in their ideas of property-ownership?

In a monarchy, all rights flow from the monarch. All property is owned ab initio by the monarch. The monarch may give some of this property to private individuals and institutions.

In a socialist/communist system, all property is ab initio owned by the "public". The government, in its role as public representative, may give some of this property to private individuals and institutions.

In a Capitalist system, all property is ab initio owned by private individuals or private institutions. These owners may then give some of this property to the government.

In a socialist system, the govenment has a claim to the income you earn. They can take any amount of it away in the form of tax. Whatever you keep is by the wish of government. In this sense, all property is owned, ab initio by the government and disposed off by the discretion of government.

In a Capitalist system, the individual has sole claim to the income he earns. It is owned by the individual. The individual has the right to give it to the government, or to any other institution, voluntarily.

In the context of an explanation of property rights, and in the context of Ms. Rand's explicit support for a functioning and effective government, the meaning appears clear.

Indeed,it is similar to saying: "Morally, all property is owned by the producer."

Understood in the context of an explanation of the fundamentals that give rise to the right of property, this statement is true. It does not imply somehow that a producer's mooching child may not inherit his property.

Eric: I'm not certain what you're getting at. Are you saying that AR was inexact in one particular sentence? Or, are you saying that she actually meant that government must operate with an institutional balance sheet that always strictly has all its assets exactly balanced by an equal amount of liabilities -- that anytime someone gives the government money, the government must immediately give it away or take on an equal liability? Or are you saying that Ayn Rand did not say this -- but that you do?

[Eric Mathis]

If the government had to contract out all its property, it would be at the mercy of those particular corporations. More importantly, there is no reason to place such a restriction on the government, save a general dislike for the government (i.e., anarchism).

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I am not against the gov't contracting to private corporations. I'm against forcing it to do so as a rule (all the time).

I don't see the merit of this objection to the use of private contractors. In a market economy, all actors are interdependent, including government. Suppose a police force buys all of its bullets from Acme Ammunition. Doesn't this leave government at the mercy of Acme? Shouldn't police then go into the manufacture of ammunition? And by extension, shouldn’t it also go into steel and chemical production so that it has the materials to produce the bullets?

[Oakes]

I don't see the merit of this objection to the use of private contractors.

Remember, as I said after "EDIT:", I am not against the government using private contractors. I'm against requiring that that's all the government uses.

In a market economy, all actors are interdependent, including government. Suppose a police force buys all of its bullets from Acme Ammunition.  Doesn't this leave government at the mercy of Acme?  Shouldn't police then go into the manufacture of ammunition?  And by extension, shouldn’t it also go into steel and chemical production so that it has the materials to produce the bullets?

If Lockheed, Boeing, and every other airplane manufacturor all of a sudden refused to produce airplanes for the US Air Force, the government would have every right to start an airplane company of its own (which would then be government property).

Admittedly, this is a far off example, but my point is that if the government had to contract out all of its police forces, courts, military bases, and everything else, the government would have no way of enforcing its monopoly on the use of force. It would simply be a needless restriction that does nothing to further individual rights.

[valjean]

GC's cat analogy earlier is interesting but real biologists have specific definitions for cats that are objectively true (ALL cats can reproduce with ALL cats of the opposite gender, thus making a unique species which can be confirmed genetically). In the same sense, as a real philosopher, I'd expect Rand to have specific definitions of her words and to mean precisely what she says. Generally this IS true for her, and this is the first time I've run across anything like this:

A study of Objectivism would permit one to read ["all property will be privately owned"] as "the vast majority of property will be privately owned."

I think this is the core of our current argument: It seems that Rand just plain didn't mean precisely what she said, and Eric Mathis (hope you don't mind if i speak for you here) and I have trouble accepting that (although at this point I do unhappily accept it).

The suggestion that the government would solely contract out to corporations was an attempt to reconcile Rand's words with practicality, but since the government certainly must have private property in the form of money to operate, it seems that there can be no reconciliation.

[Eric Mathis]

If Lockheed, Boeing, and every other airplane manufacturor all of a sudden refused to produce airplanes for the US Air Force, the government would have every right to start an airplane company of its own (which would then be government property).

Admittedly, this is a far off example, but my point is that if the government had to contract out all of its police forces, courts, military bases, and everything else, the government would have no way of enforcing its monopoly on the use of force. It would simply be a needless restriction that does nothing to further individual rights.

Non sequitur. You have not shown how having government services contracted out threatens the existence of a monopoly on retaliatory force. There is still only one institution commanding the services of these contractors.

[Oakes]

Non sequitur.  You have not shown how having government services contracted out threatens the existence of a monopoly on retaliatory force.  There is still only one institution commanding the services of these contractors.

Let's take the police as an example. If we contracted out to private police companies for all of our policing needs, who would be enforcing those contracts? The market (and all the contracts involved) presupposes that there is some threat of force behind them.

[valjean]

Let's take the police as an example. If we contracted out to private police companies for all of our policing needs, who would be enforcing those contracts? The market (and all the contracts involved) presupposes that there is some threat of force behind them.

I agree with this. The police corporations could easily give orders to the government, rather than taking orders from it, if things got just slightly unbalanced.

[Eric Mathis]

Let's take the police as an example. If we contracted out to private police companies for all of our policing needs, who would be enforcing those contracts? The market (and all the contracts involved) presupposes that there is some threat of force behind them.

Who enforces the decisions of the Supreme Court? Should the high court have its own military corps to make sure the Congress and the Executive branch comply with its rulings? (Remember President Andrew Jackson’s taunt? "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.")

In the case of a society of 100% private property, the government would call upon whatever resources that its people and its economic system offered. If Amalgamated Police is found wanting, there’s always Brinks Police, or Consolidated Police.

[Oakes]

Who enforces the decisions of the Supreme Court? Should the high court have its own military corps to make sure the Congress and the Executive branch comply with its rulings? (Remember President Andrew Jackson’s taunt? "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.")

We are assuming here that the government will follow its own laws. Without that assumption, there is no point in speaking of a "government" at all.

In the case of a society of 100% private property, the government would call upon whatever resources that its people and its economic system offered. If Amalgamated Police is found wanting, there’s always Brinks Police, or Consolidated Police.

You're assuming that there will be multiple police companies contracted with the government, which your system doesn't guarantee. And even if there were, who enforces their contracts?

[y_feldblum]

Anarchism fails because it assumes a free market for the upholding of the free market. There is no such thing. There is no free market for defense, police, and courts. These things uphold the free market.

What is your objection to government property? "Miss Rand didn't specifically mention it"?

[Eric Mathis]

We are assuming here that the government will follow its own laws. Without that assumption, there is no point in speaking of a "government" at all.

Clearly in the case of President Jackson versus John Marshall, one branch did not follow the laws of another branch. Now if you cannot guarantee unanimity among all the branches of government, is there any point in speaking of a "government" at all?

You're assuming that there will be multiple police companies contracted with the government, which your system doesn't guarantee. And even if there were, who enforces their contracts?

Why must there be multiple companies contracted? Does the government contract with multiple companies to provide one model of helicopter? As for enforcement of contracts, who enforces that the Supreme Court will abide by the Constitution?

[Oakes]

Clearly in the case of President Jackson versus John Marshall, one branch did not follow the laws of another branch.  Now if you cannot guarantee unanimity among all the branches of government, is there any point in speaking of a "government" at all?

This is pure skepticism: We can never be sure that the government follows its own rules, therefore there is no reason have a government. A government, with its limits properly defined, its checks and balances properly aligned, and most importantly, its citizenship with a culture of reason in mind, can be expected to rule without an axe to grind.

I'm such a poet.

Why must there be multiple companies contracted?  Does the government contract with multiple companies to provide one model of helicopter?

I didn't say there needed to be multiple companies; my point was to show that if we only contracted to "Amalgamated Police," there would be no such thing as "Brinks Police" or "Consolidated Police." But that's a moot point because even if there were other police companies available, their contracts would also need to be enforced by somebody. Anarchism is such a catch-22.

As for enforcement of contracts, who enforces that the Supreme Court will abide by the Constitution?

Well, in the short run, its the people who appoint the judges, who are elected by the American people. Thus it should be obvious why I consider a "citizenship with a culture of reason in mind" so important.

[softwareNerd]

In the case of a society of 100% private property, the government would call upon whatever resources that its people and its economic system offered. 

The government would "call upon" the property of its citizens? What does that mean? Would the government ever have those resources in its possession? Would the government ever have cash that it is "calling upon", before it gives it to its contractors? Would it ever possess property? Would the government simply be setting up some barter between its donating citizens and its contractors? Whatever else your suggestions may be, they have nothing to do with Objectivism!

Eric, I'll ask again, because you probably missed it the first time:, I'm not certain what you're getting at. Are you saying that AR was inexact in one particular sentence? Or, are you saying that she actually meant that government must operate with an institutional balance sheet that always strictly has all its assets exactly balanced by an equal amount of liabilities -- that anytime someone gives the government money, the government must immediately give it away or take on an equal liability? Or are you saying that Ayn Rand did not say this -- but that you do?

[y_feldblum]

Anarchism is a contradiction, as you alude to, Oaks, because, among many reasons, it assumes that there is a free market for the means of supporting the free market, and that the means of supporting the free market form a free market. It's like the chicken and the egg: which came first? If the free market came first, then how is it being supported? If the means of supporting the free market came first, then where was the free market to give rise to it?

[ex_banana-eater]

So a thorough study of Objectivism would permit one to read the statement "all property will be privately owned" as "some property will be privately owned"?

The problem with rationalists reading Ayn Rand is that most of her writing does not bode well when a single sentence is held as a meaningless abstraction uprooted from the context of her discussion. If you want to think of the context, first re-read the essay she published those words in, and then remind yourself of the audience she was writing to. Was she writing to a culture inundated with the idea of a utopian and omnipotent state, or anarcho-capitalists? That is one question you would have to take into account.

[Eric Mathis]

The government would "call upon" the property of its citizens? What does that mean? Would the government ever have those resources in its possession? Would the government ever have cash that it is "calling upon", before it gives it to its contractors? Would it ever possess property? Would the government simply be setting up some barter between its donating citizens and its contractors? Whatever else your suggestions may be, they have nothing to do with Objectivism!

That the financing of government should be entirely voluntary is unquestionably a principle of Objectivism. Toward that end, charitable foundations, entirely independent of government, could be established for the purpose of A) collecting donations and disbursing funds to pay invoices presented to the government. In this way, government need not own any physical property, even cash.

Eric, I'll ask again, because you probably missed it the first time:, I'm not certain what you're getting at. Are you saying that AR was inexact in one particular sentence?

No, her exactness was razor-sharp.

Or, are you saying that she actually meant that government must operate with an institutional balance sheet that always strictly has all its assets exactly balanced by an equal amount of liabilities -- that anytime someone gives the government money, the government must immediately give it away or take on an equal liability?

No. A perfect balance between assets and liabilities is not required to achieve a propertyless government. (See above.)

Or are you saying that Ayn Rand did not say this -- but that you do?

No, neither of us said it.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[softwareNerd]

Okay Eric, I understand where you are coming from. You're saying that Ayn Rand wanted government never to own any property, not even that which is voluntarily donated to it.

From the whole of her writing, it is clear that this is not what she meant.