Closer Look at Socialism/Communism

[Kulindahr]

Socially I could definitely be considered minarchist (though I do believe in public education, it's as much for economic reasons as any other). However, minarchism is economically more capitalist than American libertarianism (there are two main strands of that, there's paleolibertarianism as advocated by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and then there's the brand of classical liberalism advocated by the Cato Institute which they call market liberalism). The first half of Nozick's work I thought did a great job justifying the state (primarily on the grounds of its inevitability, by my understanding and interpretation). In the second half of his book he argues against going beyond the minimum threshold. The second half I disagree with on several points. Nozick was not a libertarian socialist.

How can you be more capitalist than libertarianism? The LPUSA advocates pretty much unrestricted free enterprise!

The best way I've heard my stance on government intervention in the economy summed up was by a professor I had who said that, since I concede the existence of government, I view it as a sort of balancer against the power of private corporations.

In terms of governance, that's a good function of government.

Micharchist libertarian socialist may be (Minarchists would argue "definitely is") a contradiction in terms. My support for as much economic intervention as I do would disqualify me. The problem with Marx and other communist schools of thought is that they do reduce private power, but boost government power (at least temporarily, if not permanently, depending on which school of thought) by an almost equal level. I'd ideally like to see both reduced. Decentralization of power is one way to work toward that. As such, I'm a strong supporter of states' rights and local governance.

"Libertarian socialist" always makes me think of Georgism. I like Georgism because it changes the "first come, first served" nature of private property; it's socialist in that everyone has one share in an entity that owns all the property, so everyone gets dividends based on the total value of all property (here, property=land).

There are a couple of ideas which I'll toss in here, that I think have something to offer though I don't wholly agree with, to emphasize my disagreement with capitalism. One, worker's councils.


I've also wondered (presumably I read or heard this at some point, I just can't recall where) if perhaps there isn't a way to aid in workers' self-management that would involve changing the idea that the company's higher-ups could themselves possess 51% of the company's stocks. But rather a significant chunk of stocks would be legally required to be automatically distributed among the workers.

The trouble with workers' councils is that they'd still need to hire a CEO. Workers may know the production end of the business, but they rarely have a clue about financial, marketing, etc.

When a company misbehaves and there are fines, I advocate making the fines in terms of a percentage of the stock, to be taken from the top 1/3 of stockholders. Under our current situation I'd toss the stock into Social Security; in an ideal situation it would be sold and the proceeds go into the property dividend (i.e. in Georgism, above).

I also don't like what's mine being taken by force to help those far off with whom I have no contact. Once they're provided with the opportunity to improve their lot, it is their responsibility to do so. One of the problems with the state is that it's a very large institution. Large institutions first of all are more likely to be oppressive and get away with it. Secondly, at that size I am working in common cause with people I have nothing to do with. My taxpayer dollars are funding people in Florida just as much as people near where I'm at. Decentralization of social programs and aid would be ideal.

(One of the things we too often forget in this country is that all government action, all laws, all regulations, everything, is backed by the largest military in the world. It may not use it, but the threat of incarceration or even National Guard/military intervention is always there.)

 

[opinterph]

why should [me, my family, and friends] give up all we've worked for so some people can have more[?]

Why should the fruits of my advantages and my efforts be taken from me at gunpoint?

Why should the fruits of my labor and my family and friends' labor be taken from us by force for the sake of people we don't know and will never meet? … since when did making sure they get to enjoy every single thing I do become my responsibility, become a goal for which it is permissible for an institution (like the government) to take away what is mine by force?

Would the "revolution of some sort" be necessarily a bad thing?

What do you think of such actions which seem moderate in nature but are actually designed to prop up an oppressive capitalist system?

Do you think there's a point where it'd be better to have some form or revolution rather than a slow creeping toward slightly better conditions?

NotThatCreative, I recognize that I have not yet answered all of the questions you’ve posed, though some of them were more or less rhetorical and not directed to me specifically.

Please know that I understand how “compulsory contributions” may reasonably represent a form of violence. Also know that I am of the general opinion that violence is bad.

In most situations, I tend to work within the parameters of existing systems to bring about (whatever I may perceive to be) positive change; however, I can appreciate that from time to time it may be necessary to replace a respective system entirely with something that is fundamentally dissimilar to its predecessor.

From my perspective, moderation (finding the middle ground/compromise) is a poor excuse for principle. In any event, I think the primary key to conflict resolution is almost always communication. Establishing a conduit for the exchange of ideas seems to me an essential facility to enable an understanding of the forces that influence any particular disagreement. Without the benefit of understanding, our differences become obstacles of separation and we are left in an undesirable condition.

Again, I generally consider violence to be bad.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Ten days later... Sorry, just haven't had the time to even be on this site much recently, let alone type up responses to weighty questions.

Any organization lacking hierarchy (or in some cases specialization) can expect to face limitations relating to its problem-solving ability. In circumstances where a consensus is required, the process is often sluggish and/or ineffective. This limitation can become debilitating when routine decisions are not delegated to one individual or a smaller sub-group. If the temporary delegates are constantly at risk of being excused from their function, the group may waste a significant amount of time and effort responding to internal challenge, debate, and the process to repeatedly reorganize. Such distractions would undoubtedly compete with what is presumably a more important need to complete essential tasks.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are fairly common in the US and it is my impression that “upper management” typically retains voting control of the company. There are advantages and disadvantages in ESOPs, but many companies employ the concept successfully.

They are similar ideas to one another. I'm not wholly sure if it would work, but they are intriguing ideas. Unfortunately for me the American system being like it is most of my ideology is just that, ideology. It can't by and large be put into practice.

That being said, I would be willing to accept less productivity (which a system set up on keeping too much power from the chief officers would undoubtedly have). I try to understand that all stances have negatives and positives, and the real question is what do we prioritize. I would be willing to accept a little less prosperity for a little less oppression. I don't think CEOs, COOs, CFOs, etc could be eliminated. That'd probably swing the balance too much one way. But if the power of "upper management" could be checked by their employees through their power as stockholders, then perhaps the situation could improve without too much cost to productivity.

In terms of a “tyranny of the majority,” it really depends on the circumstance. Whenever a group of individuals join together to accomplish some objective, there must be a way to break deadlock and move forward. Any group that fails to anticipate internal disagreement and put into place a system to resolve conflict is in peril of a crippling breakdown of its functionality.

To the extent that this general line of reasoning suggests a need for a somewhat centralized authority within most organized groups, it may rather loosely relate to the concept of “might makes right.” Of course, the centralized authority must be legitimized and accepted (even if it is based primarily upon force) and whoever is ultimately empowered to judge the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of the processes and outcomes resulting from that authority’s actions is necessarily compelled to hold the authority-figure accountable. In complex hierarchies, this “authorization” to hold others accountable is less optional – as each participant in the hierarchy is accountable for the actions of other authority figures below them in the overall power structure.

I propose that whatever entity (individual or corporate) holds the power to bestow authority to others in order to accomplish an objective is ultimately responsible for the actions that are undertaken to reach that objective. In other words, the direct exercise (or delegation) of power carries with it a responsibility equivalent to that power – regardless of whether anyone outside the paradigm is watching or has the capacity to intervene or redirect the action.

All power risks tyranny, democratically elected or not. Reponsibility should go with power, but I count on that in a democratic form of governance only slightly more than I count the concept of a benevolent monarch. Power tends to be exercised too much unless the people over whom said power is exercised actively check it.

And what is legitimacy? It's hard to define, except that it's intimately tied to perceptions. As people who grew up and live in democratic countries, we tend to think majority rule is enough. But is it? For example, practically every modern genocide was a majority group against a minority group. It was the majority's will. Hitler "legitimately" came to power. Dr. King: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" in A Letter From a Birmingham Jail (he was justifying civil disobedience in the passage that sentence is in). One of the great things about American politics is that simple majorities have limited power. Thanks to the filibuster, and various levels of government having different mandates (that was even more true when state legislatures elected senators), and other parts of our government and constitution, tyranny of the majority would be difficult to achieve too completely. But given our history with the genocide of the Native Americans, and the disenfranchisement of blacks for a century after they were emancipated, we are clearly not immune to it (Arizona's immigration law, which many of us consider grossly oppressive and discriminatory, is supported by a strong majority of Arizonans, to give a modern example).

In most situations, I tend to work within the parameters of existing systems to bring about (whatever I may perceive to be) positive change; however, I can appreciate that from time to time it may be necessary to replace a respective system entirely with something that is fundamentally dissimilar to its predecessor.

From my perspective, moderation (finding the middle ground/compromise) is a poor excuse for principle. In any event, I think the primary key to conflict resolution is almost always communication. Establishing a conduit for the exchange of ideas seems to me an essential facility to enable an understanding of the forces that influence any particular disagreement. Without the benefit of understanding, our differences become obstacles of separation and we are left in an undesirable condition.

Again, I generally consider violence to be bad.

I generally consider violence bad as well, but if we can justify the violence in Afghanistan because 3000 of our citizens were killed (I guarantee we've killed well over than in terms of Afghan civilians. We've probably killed over ten times that, in fact. That's only talking the war the vast majority of us, and much of the world, considers just. Iraq is a whole different story I won't even touch here) then why not revolution? I don't advocate revolution, especially not in this country (which, for all its faults, does a pretty good job with freedom, as far as an institution that large goes). Nevertheless, if we were to suddenly make a hardcore economic turn to the right and lose many of our workers' rights, like the right to unionize, then perhaps the life lost would be worth it (though of course the dead wouldn't likely take that view of it). Or perhaps if the government began to simultaneously institute all of the more oppressive/intrusive of ideas that exist in Western countries (DNA database advocated by Labour, cap on immigration advocated by Conservatives, AZ's immigration law, a national id card, warrantless wiretapping, no internet privacy, you get the idea) then perhaps revolution would also be justified.

Because, quite frankly, we can't get to certain places from the basis of our current system. If I didn't believe the state was inevitable for example, I might not oppose revolution (though I'm relatively happy with America at the moment, so I wouldn't support it). The way communication is going right now in this country, I'm not sure that'd be a reliable conduit for the energy of those of us who would oppose such laws as I mentioned a few sentences ago. Liberals and conservatives seem to be living in totally different world from one another. It's one thing to disagree on prescription, but we have trouble agreeing on reality anymore.

If the government were to veer hard in a direction you were vehemently opposed to, with the communication situation similar to what it is today, would you begin to wonder if revolution may perhaps be the answer after all?

Some more questions for you: Does society have an obligation to provide such necessities as housing (we have 1 mill chronically homeless, and 2 mill more that are point-in-time homeless), food (we have over 40 mill people who are food insecure), and health care (you know the numbers on this, I assume) to its citizens? You say you're a pragmatist, so I also wonder if you think our society in the here and now should or even can provide all this?

 

[NotThatCreative]

How can you be more capitalist than libertarianism? The LPUSA advocates pretty much unrestricted free enterprise!

Seems crazy, doesn't it? But it's true. I used to be more capitalist than most American libertarians (especially "market liberals"). Not sure I ever got much more hardcore than paleolibertarians of the Ron Paul mold (who I've honest-to-God heard advocate the demonopolization of currency-making). The LPUSA tries to balance out those two major factions of American libertarianism, though with Ron Paul's notoriety it has begun to lean toward paleolibertarians. The Cato Insitute follows a very Adam Smith -esque conceptualization of government involvement in the economy. To quote a market anarchist associated with the Austrian School, which is the economic school of thought associated with paleolibertarians, "Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place."

"Market liberalism" is more in line, economically, with the Chicago school of thought and Milton Friedman, who did occasionally advocate government intervention.

"Libertarian socialist" always makes me think of Georgism. I like Georgism because it changes the "first come, first served" nature of private property; it's socialist in that everyone has one share in an entity that owns all the property, so everyone gets dividends based on the total value of all property (here, property=land).

That's an interesting comparison. I've always associated Georgism with a single tax on land, and never really thought more about it.

The trouble with workers' councils is that they'd still need to hire a CEO. Workers may know the production end of the business, but they rarely have a clue about financial, marketing, etc.

When a company misbehaves and there are fines, I advocate making the fines in terms of a percentage of the stock, to be taken from the top 1/3 of stockholders. Under our current situation I'd toss the stock into Social Security; in an ideal situation it would be sold and the proceeds go into the property dividend (i.e. in Georgism, above).

Workers' councils are, unfortunately, not practical. Just an ideally we could do thus-and-such sort of thing. I think your notion of fines taken in stocks is interesting, not sure if it could ever be done though. I think if we got creative we could find some ways which, in combination, checked private power and oppression without having much of an adverse effect on productivity.

 

[Kulindahr]

A few comments sans quotes.

I envision that in a high-tech society everyone could be provided with basic housing, clothing, food, and household items at no cost due to roboticization of production owned by an entity dedicated to this and, while established by the government initially, separate from it. This would satisfy the free market - libertarian demand that such support not be taken from the fruit of other people's labors, while satisfying the desire of the (using the term loosely) socialists that everyone be taken care of. Until then, I am loathe to commit to plundering the creative to support the failed (granting that the failed may not in fact have failed by their own fault, given the system we have which de facto conspires to punish the poor for being poor, and other barriers to success).



Friedman occasionally advocated government intervention given the current situation. His ideal was anarcho-capitalism, where governance replaces government and even law is a commodity. It's hard to get more capitalist than that, and that's where most libertarians I know stand. Unfortunately, I see no entity or social force in his anarcho-capitalism which would prevent transformation into corporate feudalism, which is where I think we're headed (or may have already arrived, and the corporations just haven't seen fit to tell us). This is where I part ways with "pure" libertarians: I believe there must be structures to prevent the accumulation of power anywhere. On that point I can appear to be a rabid socialist, although I prefer to be as individual-rights-oriented as possible, e.g. I oppose a "death tax", but would replace it with a law forbidding the leaving to any individual or entity more than one million times the current minimum wage. The wealthy person would still have the choice of to whom he/she would leave the wealth, but would be required to distribute it among a number of heirs (at one point, if Bill Gates had died at that time, his fortune would have had to been split among a thousand heirs).


Georgism doesn't have any tax, properly speaking, but utilizes land rent, with the landlord being a corporation of the whole (with membership in the whole being variously defined by different advocates; personally, I would set membership as beginning the first time someone worked for a regular wage). I like it because I have never been able to conceive of a logical rationale for ownership of the earth settling on some individuals in preference to others, thinking instead that if there is a philosophical foundation to land ownership, it must be that the entire land is owned jointly by all who inhabit it (and for this I've been called a communist, but if I am, it would be communo-capitalist).


To me a cash fine will have more impact on productivity than one of stock; the former takes capital from the corporation while the latter merely re-arranges ownership.

 

[saymyname]

Do some reading -- governance does not require government; capitalism could work without a state.

What's your point? I was talking about anarchism or libertarian socialism, not capitalism. I was saying that anarchism (stateless socialism) couldn't exist, or isn't an appropriate way to approach anti-capitalism.

I would also have to agree with Droid's comment that Kris doesn't understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Marxism or any other variation of Marxism for that matter. He's a sorry spokesman.

 

[Kulindahr]

What's your point? I was talking about anarchism or libertarian socialism, not capitalism. I was saying that anarchism (stateless socialism) couldn't exist, or isn't an appropriate way to approach anti-capitalism.

Any anarchy will grow capitalism, so I have to agree.

I would also have to agree with Droid's comment that Kris doesn't understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Marxism or any other variation of Marxism for that matter. He's a sorry spokesman.

That's being polite about it.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I envision that in a high-tech society everyone could be provided with basic housing, clothing, food, and household items at no cost due to roboticization of production owned by an entity dedicated to this and, while established by the government initially, separate from it. This would satisfy the free market - libertarian demand that such support not be taken from the fruit of other people's labors, while satisfying the desire of the (using the term loosely) socialists that everyone be taken care of. Until then, I am loathe to commit to plundering the creative to support the failed (granting that the failed may not in fact have failed by their own fault, given the system we have which de facto conspires to punish the poor for being poor, and other barriers to success).

So are you saying that in the conceivable future you'd advocate providing everyone with food, clothing, and food but not right now? If so, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

Friedman occasionally advocated government intervention given the current situation. His ideal was anarcho-capitalism, where governance replaces government and even law is a commodity. It's hard to get more capitalist than that, and that's where most libertarians I know stand. Unfortunately, I see no entity or social force in his anarcho-capitalism which would prevent transformation into corporate feudalism, which is where I think we're headed (or may have already arrived, and the corporations just haven't seen fit to tell us). This is where I part ways with "pure" libertarians: I believe there must be structures to prevent the accumulation of power anywhere. On that point I can appear to be a rabid socialist, although I prefer to be as individual-rights-oriented as possible, e.g. I oppose a "death tax", but would replace it with a law forbidding the leaving to any individual or entity more than one million times the current minimum wage. The wealthy person would still have the choice of to whom he/she would leave the wealth, but would be required to distribute it among a number of heirs (at one point, if Bill Gates had died at that time, his fortune would have had to been split among a thousand heirs).

I think a major area that shows the difference between Friedman and Smith on one hand and minarchists on the other is infrastructure. Friedman and Smith believed in government funding of it, bridges, canals, city parks (though not national parks), etcetera. Minarchists believe the government is there for defense and dispute resolution, and nothing else. I imagine many of them realize we could never get to there from here in this lifetime, but that is their ideal. It is to the right economically of libertarians.

I'm not sure what I think of a salary cap. I've heard of it before. On one hand, it can help prevent accumulation. On the other, aren't they entitled to it? I don't much fear individual power, I find institutions to be far more oppressive. The death tax I don't actively oppose, though I'm also not sure I support. It can even the playing field, but we also have the right to provide for our posterity if we so choose. Warren Buffet doesn't, Richard Hilton does.

Georgism doesn't have any tax, properly speaking, but utilizes land rent, with the landlord being a corporation of the whole (with membership in the whole being variously defined by different advocates; personally, I would set membership as beginning the first time someone worked for a regular wage). I like it because I have never been able to conceive of a logical rationale for ownership of the earth settling on some individuals in preference to others, thinking instead that if there is a philosophical foundation to land ownership, it must be that the entire land is owned jointly by all who inhabit it (and for this I've been called a communist, but if I am, it would be communo-capitalist).

I find that quite interesting. I will confess to being quite uninformed on Georgism, so sorry if my questions on it sound ridiculous. Does that mean you don't believe in private property? I also don't quite understand this rental system. There's no landlord, so does the "rent" go into some collective pot and its use is determined by the community democratically? How does this fit in with industries that aren't about land use (as is true of most in America. Agriculture only employs 3% of us anymore)?

To me a cash fine will have more impact on productivity than one of stock; the former takes capital from the corporation while the latter merely re-arranges ownership.

Fair point.

 

[Kulindahr]

So are you saying that in the conceivable future you'd advocate providing everyone with food, clothing, and food but not right now? If so, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

Yes. What we lack at this point, mostly, is an abundant energy source.

I think a major area that shows the difference between Friedman and Smith on one hand and minarchists on the other is infrastructure. Friedman and Smith believed in government funding of it, bridges, canals, city parks (though not national parks), etcetera. Minarchists believe the government is there for defense and dispute resolution, and nothing else. I imagine many of them realize we could never get to there from here in this lifetime, but that is their ideal. It is to the right economically of libertarians.

Maybe I'm confusing my Friedmans, but I don't think so. I read a book where Friedman described how absolutely everything could be done privately, from roads to police to sewage treatment.

I'm not sure what I think of a salary cap. I've heard of it before. On one hand, it can help prevent accumulation. On the other, aren't they entitled to it? I don't much fear individual power, I find institutions to be far more oppressive. The death tax I don't actively oppose, though I'm also not sure I support. It can even the playing field, but we also have the right to provide for our posterity if we so choose. Warren Buffet doesn't, Richard Hilton does.

Salary caps? No point to them. What I was talking about was an inheritance cap, putting a limit on how much any one person or entity can inherit from a single person.

I find that quite interesting. I will confess to being quite uninformed on Georgism, so sorry if my questions on it sound ridiculous. Does that mean you don't believe in private property? I also don't quite understand this rental system. There's no landlord, so does the "rent" go into some collective pot and its use is determined by the community democratically? How does this fit in with industries that aren't about land use (as is true of most in America. Agriculture only employs 3% of us anymore)?

Georgism sort of recognizes that "private property" is to a great extent an illusion -- in the U.S., what we really have is a lease system. So it formalizes that, and distributes the result evenly to everyone.

The "landlord" is the stockholders, i.e. all citizens who are eligible. The rent would be set the same way it is for space in a mall: what the market will bear. Part of the system for determining the rental value of any land would be when someone sells a lease to someone else; there are standard formulas for determining rental value from purchase value.

Even banks are about land use: a bank in an urban area can be sitting on land valued at $500 or more per square foot. Annual rent would reflect that.

Note that land rent is based on the value of the land alone; improvements don't count. One economic benefits emerges quickly: current property tax penalizes owners for improvements, and that would vanish. An example is the common phenomenon of businesses with gravel parking areas, which leave them that way because to pave them would mean higher taxes. Where taxation on improvements has been dropped, businesses and homeowners have paved eagerly, because they won't be penalized. The benefits to the community are immediate: no gravel spilling into the street to become projectiles endangering everyone, no dust clouds settling downwind. I can't remember the city, but one in the U.S. dropped taxes on property improvements, and besides the above result there was a renaissance in landscaping, in maintenance, and in modernization.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Maybe I'm confusing my Friedmans, but I don't think so. I read a book where Friedman described how absolutely everything could be done privately, from roads to police to sewage treatment.

According to the author, the government of a liberal society should enforce law and order and property rights, as well as take action on certain technical monopolies and diminish negative "neighborhood effects." The government should also have control over money, as has long been recognized in the constitution and society.

I'd be quite unsurprised if he did in some book provide a theoretical basis for anarcho-capitalism. But, at least in his most famous work, he advocated certain government intervention. It's possible he switched his views sometime during his career. He did, after all, begin as Keynesian. People who are scholars for that long tend to have different views at various points in their careers. Capitalism and Freedom being his most famous work, though, that's the one I use as a standard.

Salary caps? No point to them. What I was talking about was an inheritance cap, putting a limit on how much any one person or entity can inherit from a single person.

Ah, that makes more sense. I'm not sure if an inheritance tax or an inheritance cap would be better... I guess I'd go with the cap.

Georgism sort of recognizes that "private property" is to a great extent an illusion -- in the U.S., what we really have is a lease system. So it formalizes that, and distributes the result evenly to everyone.

All of the rest of what you said makes sense. Especially the idea of the property tax being based on the value of the land pre-improvements. But this I have trouble with. I believe in private property. I believe it does exist, and I believe it should exist. Most people agree with me on this one. Why is it you don't believe in either?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah, that makes more sense. I'm not sure if an inheritance tax or an inheritance cap would be better... I guess I'd go with the cap.

The cap is better for at least two reasons: the wealth was already taxed once, during its accumulation; having earned it, the owner has the right to decide where it goes. It's just in the interest of liberty that it be broken up.

All of the rest of what you said makes sense. Especially the idea of the property tax being based on the value of the land pre-improvements. But this I have trouble with. I believe in private property. I believe it does exist, and I believe it should exist. Most people agree with me on this one. Why is it you don't believe in either?

Private property does not exist in the United States -- the term is a lie.

We pay rent on it, called a tax. We suffer from a massive maze of regulation telling us what we can or cannot do with it, starting with zoning. If we have to pay someone annually for the privilege of having the property, it isn't ours; if decisions about its use are made by someone other than us, it isn't ours. But most of all, the government which demands continued payment and tells us how to use our land can take it away for any purpose at all, including to feed profits to large corporations.

The only change in shifting to a Georgist approach would be honesty. On a deeper level, it would be philosophically sound, while the current system isn't.

What we have now is like a giant game of Monopoly, where the first players get their stack of money from the bank and go around buying up the property, but later ones get only a small amount of that beginning money and can only break into ownership if a current owner decides to allow it -- except that in our case, the pieces of property didn't even have to be bought, just claimed.
I can't think of any basis on which such a system can be justified.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Private property does not exist in the United States -- the term is a lie.

We pay rent on it, called a tax. We suffer from a massive maze of regulation telling us what we can or cannot do with it, starting with zoning. If we have to pay someone annually for the privilege of having the property, it isn't ours; if decisions about its use are made by someone other than us, it isn't ours. But most of all, the government which demands continued payment and tells us how to use our land can take it away for any purpose at all, including to feed profits to large corporations.

The only change in shifting to a Georgist approach would be honesty. On a deeper level, it would be philosophically sound, while the current system isn't.

What we have now is like a giant game of Monopoly, where the first players get their stack of money from the bank and go around buying up the property, but later ones get only a small amount of that beginning money and can only break into ownership if a current owner decides to allow it -- except that in our case, the pieces of property didn't even have to be bought, just claimed.
I can't think of any basis on which such a system can be justified.

That's a good argument. Unfortunately you and I disagree on prescription. To me that says that we need to work on eliminating property tax, not that we should have a system based on the idea that, due to property tax, we don't really have private property.

That could also be an argument for drastically reducing the intrusiveness of zoning laws. Getting rid of all zoning laws would simply be impractical (can you imagine a tire factory next to an elementary school?), but perhaps they could be less specific "this plot of land is for homes, this plot of land for shopping/restaurants", etcetera. And you'd be allowed to do a lot more on your property if you weren't forced to join a homeowners' association whenever you bought a house in a newly built neighborhood, as is typically the case. I like this post as an example of how onerous the regulations can be sometimes.

If we could reduce spending to such a level that taxes on clothing, food, and property were all unnecessary, I'd be completely in favor of it. Perhaps raise the tax on cigarettes to compensate... But I digress. Your argument, to me, says "eliminate the property tax so we can truly have private property" not "make a property system on the basis of no private property".

Random note, I always think of the Tower of Power song Taxed to the Max when I discuss taxes. Chorus:

taxed to the max, but we can't get the facts
they just tell us what they think we ought to know
(we get) taxed to the max, but we don't get it back
someone tell me where the money really goes

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a good argument. Unfortunately you and I disagree on prescription. To me that says that we need to work on eliminating property tax, not that we should have a system based on the idea that, due to property tax, we don't really have private property.

That could also be an argument for drastically reducing the intrusiveness of zoning laws. Getting rid of all zoning laws would simply be impractical (can you imagine a tire factory next to an elementary school?), but perhaps they could be less specific "this plot of land is for homes, this plot of land for shopping/restaurants", etcetera. And you'd be allowed to do a lot more on your property if you weren't forced to join a homeowners' association whenever you bought a house in a newly built neighborhood, as is typically the case. I like this post as an example of how onerous the regulations can be sometimes.

If we could reduce spending to such a level that taxes on clothing, food, and property were all unnecessary, I'd be completely in favor of it. Perhaps raise the tax on cigarettes to compensate... But I digress. Your argument, to me, says "eliminate the property tax so we can truly have private property" not "make a property system on the basis of no private property".

Random note, I always think of the Tower of Power song Taxed to the Max when I discuss taxes. Chorus:

But how do you justify the vast rigged Monopoly game that the traditional concept of private property entails? The whole thing is a prescription for the concentration of wealth! It's based on a situation where there was pretty much always more land to be had, but we've demonstrated rather well in practice that land is a finite commodity.

Under a Georgist system as I understand it, land would actually be more the property of the holder than under the present system with its relic of the monarchial system where the king could just move people to build new roads. Government could not exercise eminent domain, because government would hold no title to the property and have no claim on it at all. For that matter, government would also have to pay land rent, and the money would be distributed to citizens as dividends just like that from IBM or K-Mart.

I'm a strong believer in private property, but it has to be a rational system. The foundation of the current system boils down to "I got mine; you're outa luck". A finite amount of land with an ever-increasing amount of people means that land prices will continue to rise and an ever-greater portion of the population will be unable to own any. Doing it the way I propose would give you a "lease" more secure than any "title" has ever been, so it would properly be referred to as a title. No homeowners' associations could occur, no land-use restrictions, no eminent domain.

If there is a right to land ownership, it has to be equal for all -- the current system doesn't provide that. George was brilliant in seeing that the only rational claim to ownership of land is of the whole by the whole -- ultimately, of the whole earth by the whole human race.

 

[NotThatCreative]

But how do you justify the vast rigged Monopoly game that the traditional concept of private property entails? The whole thing is a prescription for the concentration of wealth! It's based on a situation where there was pretty much always more land to be had, but we've demonstrated rather well in practice that land is a finite commodity.

Ah, but I'm not necessarily against all concentration of wealth. I just want to keep it in check so people don't get too much power over one another. The danger in economic inequality isn't economic inequality itself, but rather the potential of the rich to use it to oppress the poor. Like multi-national companies do right now.

Under a Georgist system as I understand it, land would actually be more the property of the holder than under the present system with its relic of the monarchial system where the king could just move people to build new roads. Government could not exercise eminent domain, because government would hold no title to the property and have no claim on it at all. For that matter, government would also have to pay land rent, and the money would be distributed to citizens as dividends just like that from IBM or K-Mart.

Well, I am against eminent domain, as well. It has some benefits, of that there can be no doubt. Imagine the highway system built without use of eminent domain. It'd be a mess. But I don't judge such benefits to be worth the assault on private property and freedom that is eminent domain.

I'm a strong believer in private property, but it has to be a rational system. The foundation of the current system boils down to "I got mine; you're outa luck". A finite amount of land with an ever-increasing amount of people means that land prices will continue to rise and an ever-greater portion of the population will be unable to own any. Doing it the way I propose would give you a "lease" more secure than any "title" has ever been, so it would properly be referred to as a title. No homeowners' associations could occur, no land-use restrictions, no eminent domain.

Who collects/distributes/etcetera this rent? What's to keep whatever agency/group/institution that does this from becoming another level of government? I understand that it doesn't start that way, but what keeps it from ending that way.

And I must say, this system appears to abolish private property in favor of communal ownership, so your statement that you're a strong believer in private property seems at odds with this ideology you're expounding.

If there is a right to land ownership, it has to be equal for all -- the current system doesn't provide that. George was brilliant in seeing that the only rational claim to ownership of land is of the whole by the whole -- ultimately, of the whole earth by the whole human race.

If I believed in economic equality of outcome, I'd agree with it. As it stands, I defer to what I said at the beginning of this post. Nothing inherently wrong with concentration of wealth, just some of the effects that can result from that.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

What's your point? I was talking about anarchism or libertarian socialism, not capitalism. I was saying that anarchism (stateless socialism) couldn't exist, or isn't an appropriate way to approach anti-capitalism.

I would also have to agree with Droid's comment that Kris doesn't understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Marxism or any other variation of Marxism for that matter. He's a sorry spokesman.

Leninism is a distortion of true ideal Marxism.... I know the difference I just misread the words. Good lord. The Soviet Union was an accident bound to fall apart from the very start. They Stalinism was just a distortion that took a few basic principals of Marxism and completley destroyed the original concept and established a government that was a replica of extreme Capitalism which states that there is one main Capitalist, The Soviet Union. Our Capitalism is more efficient because at least there are MULTIPLE Capitalists.

If we could combine as one nation and the world all contributed towards positive goals that would benefit everyone as a global community, we wouldn't need currency and we would all accept eachother's religion, race, sexual orientation, and be raised with open minds. That probably won't happen in our life time.. but with the right ideas and enviornments, humans are capable of having ANY philosophy it matters on how much we struggle to see the reality of how much human compassion would actually solve alot of problems if we were honest and caring. People aren't born greedy and evil, it's taught to them. If we make ourselves better people NOW, we can have a better world. Just treat your children to be the best people they can be and tell them to always learn from their mistakes. What do we have to lose?

Capitalism is like the game of Monopoly.. if you are favored or given a "chance card" with an error of injustice in your favor because of your race or resources, you make a good life and make profit. Essentially, its not true that hard work will get you anywhere you want in life. Tell that to the majority of suffering people around the world that bust their ass and are near death due to mal-nourishment even though they live in a Capitalist society.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah, but I'm not necessarily against all concentration of wealth. I just want to keep it in check so people don't get too much power over one another. The danger in economic inequality isn't economic inequality itself, but rather the potential of the rich to use it to oppress the poor. Like multi-national companies do right now.

But you're advocating a system that establishes inequality of opportunity and denies that there is a right to property. What's the rational basis for that?

Who collects/distributes/etcetera this rent? What's to keep whatever agency/group/institution that does this from becoming another level of government? I understand that it doesn't start that way, but what keeps it from ending that way.

What keeps the Red Cross from becoming part of government? What keeps Microsoft from becoming part of government?

And I must say, this system appears to abolish private property in favor of communal ownership, so your statement that you're a strong believer in private property seems at odds with this ideology you're expounding.

Private property has to stand on a rational basis. The basis for our current system is "I carved it out of the wilderness and shot anyone who tried to take it, so it's mine." That's what every last title to land on the face of the planet rests on.
The only rational basis for any kind of ownership of land has to rest on the fact of equality of individuals. That requires equality of opportunity, which the current system doesn't provide. It also means that it has to rest on ownership of the whole, by the whole. Anything else rests on raw force.

If I believed in economic equality of outcome, I'd agree with it. As it stands, I defer to what I said at the beginning of this post. Nothing inherently wrong with concentration of wealth, just some of the effects that can result from that.

I don 't care about equality of outcome; that's an inane goal, and has nothing to do with Georgism. The point is a rational basis for land/resource ownership. Our "I got mine first" system of insiders doesn't cut it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Leninism is a distortion of true ideal Marxism.... I know the difference I just misread the words. Good lord. The Soviet Union was an accident bound to fall apart from the very start. They Stalinism was just a distortion that took a few basic principals of Marxism and completley destroyed the original concept and established a government that was a replica of extreme Capitalism which states that there is one main Capitalist, The Soviet Union. Our Capitalism is more efficient because at least there are MULTIPLE Capitalists.

If we could combine as one nation and the world all contributed towards positive goals that would benefit everyone as a global community, we wouldn't need currency and we would all accept eachother's religion, race, sexual orientation, and be raised with open minds. That probably won't happen in our life time.. but with the right ideas and enviornments, humans are capable of having ANY philosophy it matters on how much we struggle to see the reality of how much human compassion would actually solve alot of problems if we were honest and caring. People aren't born greedy and evil, it's taught to them. If we make ourselves better people NOW, we can have a better world. Just treat your children to be the best people they can be and tell them to always learn from their mistakes. What do we have to lose?

Do you see your inherent contradiction? From your comparison of the Soviet Union to the West, the solution is not less capitalism, but more: more and more capitalists, until everyone is one.

Then you go into mystic la-la-land. Combine everything into one nation and world, and you don't get your happy little all-get-along society, you get a giant version of the Soviet Union, but with no pressures from the outside to make it fall, and ease its collapse.

And you're still blind about currency: it will always be re-invented, because it's merely a symbol for the value of transfer of goods and materials and the input of labor.

BTW, how many times have you been a parent? or a baby-sitter for little kids? Humans are born self-centered, which means greedy -- they have to be taught otherwise. Every scream of an infant is a cry of "ME!!!", a protest against a world not under its control. Lord of the Flies is a good excursus in illustrating the reality of human nature, as most revert to the urge to dominate and control, or be close to those who do.

"Teach your children to be the best they can be." Um, by whose definition? I have a buddy who would read that and say his duty is to have kids and raise them to trust only white people, and not all of them, to strive to put those with darker skin in their place, ranked by how dark they are, to be sure all white kids born healthy are cared for but those not are thrown out, and the kids of those with darker skin aren't even considered.

The problem with learning from one's mistakes is that it's first necessary to define "mistake". Some would say that arson isn't a mistake -- getting caught is... rape isn't a mistake -- having mixed-race offspring is... stealing enough to get y isn't a mistake -- not stealing enough to live it up is....

Capitalism is like the game of Monopoly.. if you are favored or given a "chance card" with an error of injustice in your favor because of your race or resources, you make a good life and make profit. Essentially, its not true that hard work will get you anywhere you want in life. Tell that to the majority of suffering people around the world that bust their ass and are near death due to mal-nourishment even though they live in a Capitalist society.

LIFE is like the game of Monopoly; capitalism is only one expression of that inequity and widespread misery.

BTW, most of the starving people in the world don't live in a Capitalist society, but in a socialist one.

 

[JB3]

Leninism is a distortion of true ideal Marxism.... I know the difference I just misread the words. Good lord. The Soviet Union was an accident bound to fall apart from the very start. They Stalinism was just a distortion that took a few basic principals of Marxism and completley destroyed the original concept and established a government that was a replica of extreme Capitalism which states that there is one main Capitalist, The Soviet Union. Our Capitalism is more efficient because at least there are MULTIPLE Capitalists.

Good lord, are you serious? Leninism was not a distortion of Marxism, it was another branch of it. The original concept was not destroyed, it was augmented.

And you honestly believe that the Soviet Union was an example of extreme capitalism??? Really?? Where are you getting this garbage?

 

[opinterph]

I would be willing to accept less productivity (which a system set up on keeping too much power from the chief officers would undoubtedly have). … the real question is what do we prioritize. I would be willing to accept a little less prosperity for a little less oppression. … if the power of "upper management" could be checked by their employees …

Thinking about your statements, I realize that I cannot fully assimilate with [what appears to be] your assumption that power inevitably leads to oppression. Though oppression is certainly one possible outcome, it is by no means automatic. Having functioned as a “chief officer” for a [relatively small] multi-national corporation, I also realize how that role would be compromised if it were subject to the limitations that are incumbent to committee procedure. I think the essence of your general complaint might be more appropriately lodged against the strategic objectives of specific “sinister organizations” rather than the somewhat generic hierarchical model that bureaucracies are naturally prone to develop. It is reasonable to assume that your concern directly involves the concept of power – and in that regard it is probably necessary (or at least helpful) to determine what entity has the ability to initiate the action that drives any such effort. As a matter of practical consequence, that entity represents “the authority,” or “power,” in whatever system we may attempt to evaluate.

All power risks tyranny, democratically elected or not. Responsibility should go with power… Power tends to be exercised too much unless the people over whom said power is exercised actively check it.

And what is legitimacy? It's hard to define, except that it's intimately tied to perceptions.

In all organizations, authority flows from the top down and responsibility flows from the bottom up. If an individual is assigned a specific authority (from above), then that individual is responsible for the actions he or she takes (from below) to exercise that authority in order to accomplish the outcome associated with the grant of authority. While it may sometimes seem that shareholders (as a group) lack the concentration of power that their vote instills in one or more individuals empowered to act on their behalf, it is nonetheless the shareholders that ultimately wield power in a corporation. Of course, many of the shareholders in a great number of companies are themselves corporations and there are a variety of complex subsidiary relationships that tend to muddle the nexus between ownership and control. Our never-ending penchant for complexity seems to foster an increasingly indiscernible comprehension of the source of power associated with the leadership in many large organizations.

I suspect that the issue of legitimacy is at the core of your dissatisfaction. You want “the people over whom said power is exercised” to have a greater voice. Can’t say as I disagree, but you have not yet convinced me that “the people” are oppressed. Maybe they have simply forsaken their responsibility.

 

[NotThatCreative]

But you're advocating a system that establishes inequality of opportunity and denies that there is a right to property. What's the rational basis for that?

Inequality of opportunity is a good goal. But I don't expect or desire to perfectly get it. Because in order to have perfect equality of opportunity you have to move a considerable way toward equality of outcome. There will always be a class system otherwise, and in any class system there will be relatively poor people who don't have the advantages of the relatively rich.

If you're going to say that the current system sans eminent domain and property tax would still deny the right to private property, then I think perhaps you also need to not say that Georgism provides a right to private property. Communal property perhaps, not private.

What keeps the Red Cross from becoming part of government? What keeps Microsoft from becoming part of government?

Microsoft doesn't own the land my house sits on though. At the workplace, with their employees, they do function as another level of government. More power and hierarchy, only private instead of public. What's to keep the same thing from happening with Georgism? Presumable there's some agency or person that handles the money. What's to keep power from accumulating there?

Private property has to stand on a rational basis. The basis for our current system is "I carved it out of the wilderness and shot anyone who tried to take it, so it's mine." That's what every last title to land on the face of the planet rests on.
The only rational basis for any kind of ownership of land has to rest on the fact of equality of individuals. That requires equality of opportunity, which the current system doesn't provide. It also means that it has to rest on ownership of the whole, by the whole. Anything else rests on raw force.

Every title will still rest on that under Georgism. Or do you plan to hand the Native Americans and Australian aborigines their land back? I defer to my above comment regarding equality of opportunity.

I don 't care about equality of outcome; that's an inane goal, and has nothing to do with Georgism. The point is a rational basis for land/resource ownership. Our "I got mine first" system of insiders doesn't cut it.

This leads me to practical considerations of Georgism. Who decides what land a person can put their house on? Is everyone allotted an equal portion of land? If so, how does it handle varying professions? If not, then who decides how much a dairy farmer vs a tobacco-grower vs a doctor's office receptionist gets? Let's say we live in a country where there isn't plentiful land. How do we allocate land to new generations? Do we just forcibly take it from current landowners (or is land-squatters a better term)? Or is the new generation just SOL?