Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
>I wrote:> as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had >to respond > > to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power > was > > originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Dennis Rodman -- no, Redmond -- wrote: >Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of >any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was >extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- >striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, >playing off factions, etc. My point is that since he used the peasants for this, what he could achieve was profoundly influenced by their interests. This can be good -- as with the Iron Rice bowl -- or bad -- as with the laws about non-peasants not holding certain offices. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
Norm -- I wish there were more erudite conservative discussion groups. Conservatism on the web appears to be more passive -- original research done at the think tanks, often filtered through popularizers and columnists, is voluminous and available at the sites or delivered to your email. If you would like suggestions, let me know. The best I can propose is the Leo Strauss list (which you can join through Egroups). It is probably not a good example of typical conservative thought and focuses on a relatively narrow range of topics, but it is at a high level and involves academics and others who would identify themselves as conservative. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikalac Norman S NSSC Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5852] RE: RE: Re: Private Property thank you for your interesting comments, david. i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning process, as they say. PS. i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? if so, please point them out. norm * that is not a paid advertisement. -Original Message- From: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Re: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
At 07:58 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the >Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as >presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? what, the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads don't strive for intellectual excellence? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: Private Property
thank you for your interesting comments, david. i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning process, as they say. PS. i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? if so, please point them out. norm * that is not a paid advertisement. -Original Message- From: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Re: RE: Re: Private Property
I am >a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism >without >bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell).> > > Some of us here belong to the wor;d's third oldest profession and there are legal discussions intermittwently; pitch in if you have idea. Btw, I am a believer in bankruptcy under socialism, and I have caught a lot of hell for it from them as wants paradise without its underside. I don't know if you have noticed these exchanges. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond > to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was > originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, playing off factions, etc. The really interesting question, of course, is why the agrarian-autarkic state proved to be such a good mesh with the East Asian developmental state; this suggests that a tremendous amount of modernization happened in China during the later, truly demented period of Mao's rule, beneath the surface. -- Dennis
RE: Re: Private Property
Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
At 08:18 AM 12/7/00 -0800, you wrote: >And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao >Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding >company otherwise known as the CCP? as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: RE: private property?
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
Re: RE: RE: private property?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, David Shemano wrote: > 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. And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding company otherwise known as the CCP? Property isn't always theft, but it's not identical with freedom, either. -- Dennis
Re: RE: RE: private property?
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. > We have a fundamental disagreement, then, david. I think that democratic decisionmaking, including wrong democratic decisionmaking, _is_ fundamentally noble; indeed; it is an essential constituent of the good life. I think this is true not just because I think democracy promotes individual happiness overall better than the alternatives, although it does because the alternative is minority rulke in the self interest of the minority; and not just because democracy is ther fairest way to make decision that affect us all, including how social resources are to be allocated, but also because the exercise of human powers in collective self government develops those powers, making us better and freer people. I would see the democratic principle enhanced in politics and extended to the economy. I regard it as incompatible with private ownership of productive assets, because that allows the private owners to unilaterally make decisions that affect us all, regardless of its effect on the welfare of others, without their having a far say in the matter; and it corrupts politics because those that have the gold, rule. I advocate markets, as is notorious on this list, but that is quite different from private property. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
RE: RE: private property?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 08:20PM >>>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. (( CB: Isn't there a much smaller number of people than 50,000 who have effective control over the Exxon ? (( 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. (( CB: I thought you thought 50,000 owners worked fine at Exxon.
RE: RE: RE: private property?
>> 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. Who stated anything metaphysical? What could be more fundamental to a society that professes to be based on liberty and property than to ensure that massive asymmetries of power do not usurp the "right" of democratic self government? Utility is meaningless in this context. > 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. Ah, the addiction to individualism runs deepto the point of a majority of one determining the "rules" for everyone else. How would that person be held accountable in your system? > "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. Sounds like autocracy to me. > "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. *** Well, to stick the example at hand, shouldn't those 50K people be hauled into court to pay the 5billion$$ they owe the US citizenry for the actions of their employee? Or is liability for [other] suckers? > I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. *** Define efficient. Please. > 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 Politics ain't noble, it's about tragedy avoidance and holding strangers accountable when they visit harms -economic & physical- on others. To the extent that democratic procedures attempt to do this while mitigating the all too real paradoxes of actually existing liberty and property , then I'd say...got anything better? Anti-Hobbes, Ian >
RE: RE: private property?
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
