In Defense of Private Property (in the Marxist sense)

[kiba]

As to your house Kiba, if you are renting it out to someone else, then it's his house (just like that truck that Russian Truck driver was driving in the example someone brought up earlier)

The landlord is supposed to maintain the house and the tenant is supposed to complain to the landlord. That's how it suppose to work, no?

[Babylon]

As to your house Kiba, if you are renting it out to someone else, then it's his house (just like that truck that Russian Truck driver was driving in the example someone brought up earlier)

The landlord is supposed to maintain the house and the tenant is supposed to complain to the landlord. That's how it suppose to work, no?

If that's how the landlord and the tenant wish to arrange it.

Depends on how much you are charging for your maintenance services, and besides, if I have nothing that needs to be maintained, why should I pay you?

[bittersweet]

Didn't say that.  I said that his ownership cannot be maintained without a government.

Protection of property is impossible without government?

How about I just setup traps and access codes?

Hey, if my machine cuts your head off at night, it's not my fault - I told you to not touch it!  

good for you. And if you are the one working your machine that works just fine.

The means of production are then owned by the producers.

Meanwhile if you hire someone else to use your machine he won't be able to, it will cut off his head.

nah, it can have retinal scanners, owner types code - let him work for 1 day, if you want to get paid and work tomorrow give me the boots you "produced" (it's not only "producer" who made it - machine also makes it and workers who produced materials, many workers might work on different parts etc - another commie nonsense to say the worker in factory owns the shoe he made)

Of course I doubt it would be needed because in normal society private property would be respected.

[kiba]

If that's how the landlord and the tenant wish to arrange it.

Depends on how much you are charging for your maintenance services, and besides, if I have nothing that needs to be maintained, why should I pay you?

Because I still own the damn place?

[Babylon]

Didn't say that.  I said that his ownership cannot be maintained without a government.

Protection of property is impossible without government?

How about I just setup traps and access codes?

Hey, if my machine cuts your head off at night, it's not my fault - I told you to not touch it! 

good for you. And if you are the one working your machine that works just fine.

The means of production are then owned by the producers.

Meanwhile if you hire someone else to use your machine he won't be able to, it will cut off his head.

nah, it can have retinal scanners, owner types code - let him work for 1 day, if you want to get paid and work tomorrow give me the boots you "made" (it's not only worker who made it - machine also makes it and workers who produced materials - another commie nonsense)

Of course I doubt it would be needed because in normal society private property would be respected.

Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative because he has to pay overhead on the machine security and also because his workers don't give a damn how good of boots they make, they aren't in business for themselves.

[Babylon]

If that's how the landlord and the tenant wish to arrange it.

Depends on how much you are charging for your maintenance services, and besides, if I have nothing that needs to be maintained, why should I pay you?

Because I still own the damn place?

Says you.

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

[bittersweet]

Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative

wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.

[kiba]

Says you.

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

So property right have no meaning in your world?

[Babylon]

Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative

wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.

I assume some factories were taken during the revolution that led to an Anarchist society.

And you just made it into a who has more guns contest. I assure you, the people with the most guns don't respect property.  You can see that by the way the government has been behaving currently.  They strongly believe all the property to be theirs.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative

wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.

Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative

wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?

Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)

You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.

I assume some factories were taken during the revolution that led to an Anarchist society.

And you just made it into a who has more guns contest. I assure you, the people with the most guns don't respect property.  You can see that by the way the government has been behaving currently.  They strongly believe all the property to be the
irs.

Land claims agencies and private property enforcement are really interesting. Here are some sources you guys should read providing historical examples of how this works in practice

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

[kiba]

We need to get back to the basic and discuss ethical philosophy.

[Babylon]

We need to get back to the basic and discuss ethical philosophy.

Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.

In the case of the landlord and the tenant both are acting ethically by their own standards.  The landlord feels that he has a right to collect rent because he put up the capital to provide he house, the tenant feels he has no obligation to pay rent, because the land lord is simply seeking to extract value from past work and charging an absurd premium for current work (the maintenance, which would be much cheaper from a third party) both would be defending what they felt they have a right to if a conflict occured.

[kiba]

Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.

If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.

[Babylon]

Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.

If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.

We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.

[bittersweet]

and charging an absurd premium for current work

Why absurd? If it's absurd on a free market a competition with lower prices should appear.
If there are people willing to pay that much for it, it's not absurd.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.

If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.

We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.

 

Seriously you guys, if you read some of the links I posted it shows that non-governmental, non-monopolistic third party private property enforcement agencies work quite well in practice.

[Babylon]

and charging an absurd premium for current work

Why absurd? If it's absurd on a free market a competition with lower prices should appear.
If there are people willing to pay that much for it, it's not absurd.

That was my point,  if Kiba "owns" the house and expects rent, in return for which he maintains the house, and I choose to pay someone else less to maintain it, he is still going to feel he is owed rent.

From a practical standpoint all I get for the rent is maintenance, which I could get more cheaply elsewhere.

[Babylon]

Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.

If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.

We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.

 

Seriously you guys, if you read some of the links I posted it shows that non-governmental, non-monopolistic third party private property enforcement agencies work quite well in practice.

Really?  Why aren't they still around then?

[Garrett Burgwardt]

In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame

Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.

Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.

[Babylon]

In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame

Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.

Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.

I expect the Somalians will devolve back into Tyrrany,  I hope they will evolve to true Anarchy,  I sincerely doubt that they will manage to maintain their frontier sort of society for long at all.