5 ms·

Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. It's important to note that the state's protection of such prop

by kunimu 9y ago

Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. It's important to note that the state's protection of such property is to be expected in this case, in which it is the government which acts as a capitalist itself on the global scale and on the internal scale (such as by employing wage labour). There are numerous examples of people and businesses which own private property and employ people in exchange for wages in Venezuela. The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. For it is private property which can ensure the cycle of M-C-M' which we see respected and the functioning of money as the general equivalent form of Value.

microcolonel 9y ago
> The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I'd agree with that, but with the exception of wealth (and possibly property) taxes. I might accept that real property must be rented from the state to accomplish certain goals, but I'm not so sure other property can be. In reality, if the rates are low enough, even a wealth tax is not a mortal threat to property, but it is still questionable (which is why it seems some Norwegian parties are looking to ditch it). Last time I said this, I was dragged into a bickering match, but: wealth taxes have many of the properties of rents, which sets them far apart from income, consumption, and excise taxes. Transactional taxes (income, consumption, excise, even inheritance [though I oppose this one for double taxation reasons]) pose no threat to property rights, they just ultimately change the true price of goods and services. Property and wealth taxes pose a threat to property rights, since they threaten the property directly. But that's not what people are talking about here anyway, they're talking about literal seizures of private property.
sol_remmy 9y ago
"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew. Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe
- DomreiRoam 9y ago
  Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.
  - adventured 9y ago
    The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
  - mcv 9y ago
    Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
    - DomreiRoam 9y ago
      It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.
- kunimu 9y ago
  Naming an example of a seizure of private property does little to show against the idea that the State respects and protects private property. I do not deny that is has seized private property, however private property in many cases continues unimpeded and protected by the police and the State in general (and yes, it is possible for the State to own private property too). It is possible to name examples of other countries seizing property or stealing from innocent people. Neither of these examples disprove the idea that these states respect and defend private property, or that they respect and defend personal property. The US has seized the personal property of many people. Does this mean that the US police do not act to punish people who steal?
ameister14 9y ago
>The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I don't think that's what people are thinking of when they say something like Venezuela doesn't respect private property. They are thinking of the seizure of ranches and companies so they can be redistributed.

by kunimu 9y ago

microcolonel 9y ago

> The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I'd agree with that, but with the exception of wealth (and possibly property) taxes. I might accept that real property must be rented from the state to accomplish certain goals, but I'm not so sure other property can be. In reality, if the rates are low enough, even a wealth tax is not a mortal threat to property, but it is still questionable (which is why it seems some Norwegian parties are looking to ditch it). Last time I said this, I was dragged into a bickering match, but: wealth taxes have many of the properties of rents, which sets them far apart from income, consumption, and excise taxes. Transactional taxes (income, consumption, excise, even inheritance [though I oppose this one for double taxation reasons]) pose no threat to property rights, they just ultimately change the true price of goods and services. Property and wealth taxes pose a threat to property rights, since they threaten the property directly. But that's not what people are talking about here anyway, they're talking about literal seizures of private property.

sol_remmy 9y ago

"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew. Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe

DomreiRoam 9y ago
Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.
- adventured 9y ago
  The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
- mcv 9y ago
  Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
  - DomreiRoam 9y ago
    It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.
kunimu 9y ago
Naming an example of a seizure of private property does little to show against the idea that the State respects and protects private property. I do not deny that is has seized private property, however private property in many cases continues unimpeded and protected by the police and the State in general (and yes, it is possible for the State to own private property too). It is possible to name examples of other countries seizing property or stealing from innocent people. Neither of these examples disprove the idea that these states respect and defend private property, or that they respect and defend personal property. The US has seized the personal property of many people. Does this mean that the US police do not act to punish people who steal?

ameister14 9y ago

>The fact that such activity is highly taxed or limited is irrelevant to the point about private property being defended and respected. I don't think that's what people are thinking of when they say something like Venezuela doesn't respect private property. They are thinking of the seizure of ranches and companies so they can be redistributed.