4 ms·

>But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again,

>But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again, this doesn't reflect the historicity of the ownership of capital. Today's equivalent to land monopoly would be intellectual property where individuals and firms have effectively monopolized lawful use of labor to produce a wide variety of products. This is especially disastrous when it comes to patents since there's no reasonable justification for such monopolization since it is by definition rent seeking. Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? >And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. No it's not flawed because capital is the means of production itself. Your car isn't a means for production that can be naturally monopolized. But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. The act of demanding a toll for the road crossing is what capitalism does as a whole. It says "I will use force to extract rents on things which clearly are a necessary component to life without adding value in said transaction nor pay for the socialization of the costs/risks of my ventures." >And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism.

UK-AL 10y ago
Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  >Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line. Owning tools that can make things (capital) does not make one a capitalist anymore than one who owns a firearm does not make one a soldier. I think this has to be the most important point that so many miss when discussing the failures of capitalism in that they conflate so many things with the role of a capitalist (or rentier) with things or roles that aren't in any capacity like it. The mere possession does not constitute the role.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    But how you separate personal possessions from capital possessions, if all capital is meant to owned by the community. Is a bread maker capital? Will i be allowed to own a bread maker? What if we start giving bread as gifts to our friends. Then they reciprocate those gifts? Trading bread for other things? At what point does it become capital?
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      I would say it's the scope that defines the issue. If you own a bread maker it's not really depriving anyone of making their own bread. But if I own a bread making factory where I either flood the market to control bread making in general or otherwise use bullies with clubs to stop you from making your own bread then I'm abusing my position as a capital owner. That's the real problem that I think gets lost or outright ignored in this sorts of discussions (i.e. people too focused on personal possessions of their cars, homes, and bread makers). Owning capital in itself isn't inherently bad. It's when you monopolize the use of it or use it as a means to deprive others from acquiring access to capital for their own purposes (ex. IP laws) then you're acting in a manner that's dishonest and in opposition to the natural order of markets (maximizing production based on immediate demand).
      - UK-AL 10y ago
        Except monopoly is the exception not the norm in most market areas..
snrplfth 10y ago
> Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? Why do you assume I'm in favour of a particular form of patent law? (Let alone any patent law?) I'm not (though it's not a super-strongly held prior), and I think that this is perfectly consistent with supporting a very market-based system. I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. >But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. It must be refreshed constantly with new investment. It's also not a monopoly on anything - no more than the door in a house is a monopoly on entry into that house. And "ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing a road"? I think roads (and sidewalks, and boardwalks) very much improve ambulation and transportation of all kinds. Building a road and then tolling it is not rentiership in any sense. Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. They can be, in many cases, but that's not because they own capital. > It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism. Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And unless you're prepared to keep people in their locality permanently, you're going to see localities that change size radically. And if you're going to keep localities of a similar size, who enforces that? And if they do, you're back to gigantism.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  >I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. Glad we agree at least on this point >Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. >I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). This ultimately leads to a social order where those who own title to land can reign supreme over others who rent the land. >Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. There's no way around it and it needs to be addressed if you want to fix the fundamental problems that plague society. >Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Property is a necessary but not sufficient condition of capital. And property isn't the issue (read Proudhon) but rather the title acting as impersonal property over personal property as use. Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). >Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). >They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And none of this is capitalism. I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around. Because at it's heart two individuals free of exclusivity that comes with capitalism trading among themselves is no more a capitalist than is a musician a capitalist just because they're paid big bucks to sing at concerts. You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. None of this in any form is necessary to the definition of a market system. A market system is merely free exchange of goods at some price (social credit, barter, money, etc). That's it, nothing else defines a market. And as such it takes a capitalist to make capitalism; no ands, ifs, or buts.

UK-AL 10y ago

Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line.

norea-armozel 10y ago
>Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line. Owning tools that can make things (capital) does not make one a capitalist anymore than one who owns a firearm does not make one a soldier. I think this has to be the most important point that so many miss when discussing the failures of capitalism in that they conflate so many things with the role of a capitalist (or rentier) with things or roles that aren't in any capacity like it. The mere possession does not constitute the role.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  But how you separate personal possessions from capital possessions, if all capital is meant to owned by the community. Is a bread maker capital? Will i be allowed to own a bread maker? What if we start giving bread as gifts to our friends. Then they reciprocate those gifts? Trading bread for other things? At what point does it become capital?
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    I would say it's the scope that defines the issue. If you own a bread maker it's not really depriving anyone of making their own bread. But if I own a bread making factory where I either flood the market to control bread making in general or otherwise use bullies with clubs to stop you from making your own bread then I'm abusing my position as a capital owner. That's the real problem that I think gets lost or outright ignored in this sorts of discussions (i.e. people too focused on personal possessions of their cars, homes, and bread makers). Owning capital in itself isn't inherently bad. It's when you monopolize the use of it or use it as a means to deprive others from acquiring access to capital for their own purposes (ex. IP laws) then you're acting in a manner that's dishonest and in opposition to the natural order of markets (maximizing production based on immediate demand).
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      Except monopoly is the exception not the norm in most market areas..

snrplfth 10y ago

> Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? Why do you assume I'm in favour of a particular form of patent law? (Let alone any patent law?) I'm not (though it's not a super-strongly held prior), and I think that this is perfectly consistent with supporting a very market-based system. I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. >But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. It must be refreshed constantly with new investment. It's also not a monopoly on anything - no more than the door in a house is a monopoly on entry into that house. And "ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing a road"? I think roads (and sidewalks, and boardwalks) very much improve ambulation and transportation of all kinds. Building a road and then tolling it is not rentiership in any sense. Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. They can be, in many cases, but that's not because they own capital. > It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism. Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And unless you're prepared to keep people in their locality permanently, you're going to see localities that change size radically. And if you're going to keep localities of a similar size, who enforces that? And if they do, you're back to gigantism.

norea-armozel 10y ago
>I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. Glad we agree at least on this point >Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. >I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). This ultimately leads to a social order where those who own title to land can reign supreme over others who rent the land. >Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. There's no way around it and it needs to be addressed if you want to fix the fundamental problems that plague society. >Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Property is a necessary but not sufficient condition of capital. And property isn't the issue (read Proudhon) but rather the title acting as impersonal property over personal property as use. Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). >Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). >They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And none of this is capitalism. I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around. Because at it's heart two individuals free of exclusivity that comes with capitalism trading among themselves is no more a capitalist than is a musician a capitalist just because they're paid big bucks to sing at concerts. You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. None of this in any form is necessary to the definition of a market system. A market system is merely free exchange of goods at some price (social credit, barter, money, etc). That's it, nothing else defines a market. And as such it takes a capitalist to make capitalism; no ands, ifs, or buts.