Should private property be abolished?
First, I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist, but I'm not advocating for revolution or anything like that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pursue increased liberty and increased equality from within the current system, allowing for the possibility of gradual changes without causing social instability.
Now, the issue I would like to discuss here is private property. I'm just going to rant a bit and hopefully through discussing the issue I will be able to clarify my own thoughts and position.
It seems to me that hoarding of private property is the source of the most extreme forms of inequality (in the western world anyways). I'm thinking of the way banks accumulate enormous sums of money, and the massive amount of wealth funneled up through conglomerate corporations that own companies and manufacturing, but are not even remotely connected to production or managerial processes of the companies they profit from. Even copyright laws, which allow companies to own and therefore profit from the work of others (how many musicians and artists have lost the right to their own work?).
- Is it right to own something (preventing others from using it) even when you are not using it?
-Should people be able to inherit the wealth of their parents (even though they didn't work for it?).
Why should land developers be able to profit so much by acquiring what is often public land, and selling homes built by labourers who have no property rights to the things they build? If there was no private property, why would workers ever sell themselves to a company (making the company rich, but merely supporting him/herself)?
My alternative: Possession
The concept of the right to posssession is different from the right to private property. It does not allow people to own more than they can reasonably use, nor does it allow one person or group of persons to own land that they are not currently using. Ownership is determined by possession of something and when you cease to possess something (for a long enough time anyways), you lose your right to own it. This would also mean that if a building was abandoned and someone else wanted to possess it, they could do so freely.
Anyways, there is a lot of food for thought in there so....
....What do you think?
|
2
points
I would wager that the people who feel this way don't have much of anything. I felt this way when I was in college and didn't have a pot to piss in. But now that I have a big house, a nice car, own some land, there's no way I would give that up. I worked hard for it. Unlike when I was in college and i partied more often than not. You want stuff, earn it. Don't take it away from somebody else. 1
point
Please describe how can you be a libertarian socialist at the same time? By the definition, libertarian wants minuscule government especially in economics while socialist wants government in economics. As for the question, private property should never abolished, it is what creates wealth. I would never want to share my wealth, why would I want to share with others except family that I worked hard? Government practice this mantra already enough with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and all the other social programs. Screw for the benefit of society. What is so bad about owning property? Side: yes
Americans tend to see this as a contradiction because of the right-wing (sometimes contradictory) breed of libertarianism that dominates there, but it really isn't. First you have to understand that by socialism I do not mean state-socialism. I use socialism to mean a general beleif in egalitarianism. I do not advocate the use of coercion in any way, and this must logically preclude me from supporting the forced re-distribution of wealth such as taxes or communist-style economics. I think that most of what you value about private-property would be maintained by my conception of use-occupancy-possession ownership. I too, would love to own property, but the problem is that land is being hoarded by a few. The state would arrest me if I tried to hook up utilities and live in an abandonded house, or evict me if I tried to farm abandoned land. This is the extreme form of property ownership that I am interested in dismantling- because it is inarguably restricting my freedom. When America was founded, there was land enough for everyone, and this is what made America such a great place. But now that 1% of Americans own 43% of the American wealth, the regular working class is getting squeezed. So essentially you are already sharing your wealth, but you are 'sharing it' only with the richest fat-cats in the country. You probably don' have enough wealth left to share with others if you wanted to. So, I am not talking about taking your hard earned money, I'm talking about creating a more equal playing field for everyone. Cheers :) what is left-libertarianism
Side: Sorta
2
points
I understand now socialism meaning Egalitarianism meaning equality. But egalitarianism is infeasible in a capitalism society. How can egalitarianism exist without state-socialism? How would it be fair to take away even the fat cats property away or have to share it fair? Most of all the land is owned by the government. There are a lot of holes in the private property as you noted but why should you be able to farm abandon land if you don't own it. Are you a egalitarian because you envy the fat cats wealth or just hate the fact that own the nation? I guess I am a libertarian capitalist. Side: Sorta
1
point
You could say that most of the wealth is in the upper class society, but that doesn't pertain to the land. I have traveled all over America and have seen many areas of open land for sale. The only reason why people live in cramped quarters is because of the areas they choose to live in. If someone chooses to live in a large city, it's common sense that they will be forced into a smaller home, as opposed to the country where they can have almost as much as they choose. Side: NO WAY
1
point
We shouldn't have to give our land away to someone, although we worked hard for it. If they want to have land they need to get up, get a job, and earn their own money. People should be able to inherit their families possessions. Although they didn't work for it, they deserve it because their family owned it and worked hard for it. Side: NO WAY
Like I said, I'm not advocating for taking away your stuff. I am really only concerned with the extreme wealth of the top 1%. A lot of the wealth "belonging" to this top one percent more rightfully beongs to the workers that actually created the wealth with their labour. The truth is people everywhere are working and earning their money, but are not getting paid what their labour is worth.The near functional monopolies created by the mega-corporations outcompete small businesses, forcing people to work for these mega-corporations (who get richer and richer while paying workers less and less). Side: Sorta
1
point
It doesn't belong to the workers. The business owner was ingenious enough to create the business, and they just didn't beat him to the punch. If they believe their work is not valued enough they could always strike against the company and spread the word. Mega corporations usually pay their workers more than a small business because they can afford it. Side: Sorta
1
point
No. Private property is like welfare, those without want it handed to them on a silver platter. To let others use something that they haven't worked for doesn't work. With property comes responsibility. Someone without this cannot be trusted to care of another man's possessions. One example I'll take from my own business. Hire a driver to drive an older semi- truck, that is in perfect condition and he will complain about that truck. Over and over you will hear him complain about it and pretty soon it will start to need major repairs. That driver intentional tries to destroy that truck in hopes that you will be convinced a new one is needed. This driver has no respect for another man's property, because it is not his. To share that which you have worked for, cannot happen. I have told drivers that if they don't like what I have, to find another job. I have told drivers that if they don't like it, to buy their own truck. I have told drivers and told drivers, but without responsibility there is no respect. Side: NO WAY
1
point
I believe it is bad for society when the inheritance is a large one. Small inheritance doesn't affect much. I'll use these two as examples; George Bush JR. and Paris Hilton, both started with money and neither has a brain. I know they haven't inherited anything yet, but giving someone vast amounts of money has the same affect. I have no problem with giving someone a chance to succeed, but to make it impossible to fail is bad. How can one learn values, morals and ethics if you can buy your way out of any troubles? Side: NO WAY
1
point
|
