At 05:20 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
One way to deal with the issue of freedom in a way that avoids metaphysics
is to simply cut the Gordian knot: assume that our preferences our not
determined by outside forces (as neoclassical economics does) and then
define "freedom" as the availability of choices, so that "more freedom"
involves having more choices.
My point about technical and pecuniary externalities is very simple in
these terms: even if we put aside the efficiency dimensions of the
question, the fact is that externalities allow the violation of my freedom.
(It's traditional to discuss issues of freedom in very individualistic
terms, so I'm doing so.) If a company pollutes the air, it's violating my
freedom, denying me the availability of fresh air. It's using its "private"
property to invade my private space (trespassing on my lungs). It's not
really "private."
Similarly, on the issue of pecuniary externalities, if a company (like Sony
Pictures here in Culver City, CA) decides to shut down its factory in my
town, it damages the economy, including the revenues of small businesses
that cater to the employees. It imposes a "multiplier effect" on the whole
town, reducing the availability of jobs. On a nationwide level, when
businesses decide to cut back on fixed investment, they impose a painful
recession on the entire country, if not the world. The capitalists control
the productive property, while the workers lack access to ways of surviving
without working for the capitalists, so that the workers must pay
surplus-value to the capitalists so that they (the workers) can survive.
All of these reduce peoples' choices, limiting their freedom. Again, the
owners of property have a major societal impact, belying the notion that
their property is "private."
In other words, we need to break with the liberal problematic, in which
it's only the government that violates individual freedom. "Private"
property isn't really private in its impact. It's only private in terms of
giving some individuals control over some resources while allowing them to
privately appropriate any profits that can be garnered using those resources.
>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. [now called ExxonMobil.] 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.
It is quite common to hear this. In this kind of statement, it is usual to
define "efficiency" as involving the lowest possible cost for the owners of
the property. This is not truly efficient in the sense that economics uses
that term -- because lowering one's own costs can easily mean the
imposition of costs on others (as with the Exxon Valdez incident, to name
one). As E.K. Hunt points out, the institution of "private property"
encourages self-interested individuals to aggressively seek out ways to
dump costs on others (external costs) and to absorb external benefits.
>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.
I favor democratic sovereignty as the basic political principle. If the
people united were to democratically decide that institutions of
individualized property should play a role, that would make those
institutions worthy of more respect. But instead, those with the most
property decide to institutionalize and expand the realm of individual
property... The institution of "private property" reflects the power of
those who own tremendous amounts of it, usually allied with those who own
small amounts of it.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
