Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my
perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to
be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can
exist under capitalism. Not that those are not important issues, but I do
not think they are fundamental. The issue is more utilitarian.
No matter what political-economic system you can imagine, rules are going to
have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources
to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your
space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will
provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a
single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer.
"Private property" can evolve to take many forms, often unpredictable and
complex. To take the example of Exxon, 50,000 people each own individual
shares of Exxon. At some relevant level, a single person has exclusive
right to possess, use and transfer the share without the approval of any
other person. Notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership, the corporation
is remarkably efficient in performing its societal role.
I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most
efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. If you
believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision
making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have
chosen an end which I do not share.
David Shemano
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lisa & Ian Murray
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5734] RE: private property?
>>
At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a
political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is
more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a
system to the contrary, especially because the causes of human
happiness are
subjective and diverse. Third, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a
political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is
more conducive to the achievement of the "good life" or the
"best life", as
I would define it, than a system to the contrary.
>>
Do we really have "private" property under capitalism? it seems
to me that
there are a tremendous number of technical and pecuniary
externalities, so
that even if _ownership_ (and the appropriation of income from ownership)
is private, the _impact_ is not.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
***********
A very crucial debate could ensue if we pursue the above themes. For Mr.
Shemano, I would also ask Jim Devine's question as well as further inquire
into what is private about, say, 50,000 people owning Exxon corporation?
Just because the state doesn't own something it does not follow that
ownership is private. Indeed in today's world, the ownership of virtually
every capital yielding asset is always already socially owned and the
ecological consequences of said ownership are, too, social in the extreme.
A further problem for a conservative perspective on ownership concerns
employment contracts in such "private property" institutions. Why must
individuals [pardon the US-centric aside for the moment] alienate
fundamental civil liberties as a condition of employment. Why do
conservatives ignore the ideas of Frances Hutchison [Adam Smith's teacher
and an enormous influence on Thomas Jefferson] specifically his arguments
for inalienable "rights" to democratic self government? It would seem that
if conservatives and others were to remain even remotely committed to any of
the ideas of self-ownership that emerged in the "Enlightenment", then the
employment contract as it exists today is really just a version of the
master/slave relationship and lord/serf relationship that preceded them
historically. How do conservatives explain to themselves the notion that
rights can't be alienated to the state but can be alienated away for the
sake of access to the means of production and [re]production of one's life
chances, thus ensuring a substantive amount of unnecessary inequality in the
realm of "rights", let alone the wealth that make the exercise of one's
liberty possible? Further, where did the state get the "right" to delegate
to some individuals the "right" to coerce others to vacate their "rights"
for the sake of a job? Even a conservative such as Jeremy Bentham owned up
to this paradox and concluded that ALL rights flowed from the state. Why
can't conservatives today admit that to themselves so we can end the charade
that the domain of commerce is a market of freedom and is, for the
overwhelming majority, a realm of authoritarian coercion?
Ian
