4 ms·

>I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons) I don't thinl it is all or

>I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons) I don't thinl it is all or nothing. Private property is overall a very good idea and principle, and Piketty says that too. But when someone sees property it as inalienable right, at any level, is a problem. For example, if one person talks about a tax based on wealth, two people can have a healthy disagreement, and discuss how to implement. But when someone does not event want to consider it... because it would supposedly bring us back to communism dark ages, that is basic ideology in action, not rational thinking.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
I think that the idea of private property as an inalienable right is rooted in the enlightenment and on the same level as human rights. It is to protect individuals against spoliation by the state or powerful, and even to assert an even more basic right to own property at all. It obviously does not mean that property cannot be taken away from its owner but that this must follow a fair and lawful process.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The Enlightenment never really worked this through. In fact modern economics hijacks a lot of humanist rhetoric (including the idea of rationality and human rights) and glues it rather awkwardly onto concepts that are actually derived from monarchy - specifically individual sovereignty, and a kind of individualised version of divine right which elevates unlimited individual economic freedom-to-profit as the highest possible good. It's actually a bit of a mess, conceptually and practically. Property is really not a simple concept. Most people think of it as "Stuff I own" which reduces the argument to "I don't want the government stealing my house or my furniture," which sounds trivially obvious. In fact all claims on property are complex - see also IP, stocks, and so on - and personal ownership is always a trade-off between individual benefits and socialised/externalised costs. This doesn't just apply to extreme situations like a war economy, or impounding the proceeds of crime - it's inherent in the practice itself. You won't find much about that in orthodox economics.
  - atlih 7y ago
    Taxes are derived from monarchy as well.
cies 7y ago
Exactly. The difference between private (capital what you make money off) and personal (what make physical use in life) property is interesting. I propose to make the threshold between these two very crisp, expressed in a currency amount, say 20 million US. Also the folk against the eternal protection of priv prop is not all authoritarian commies. You find them a lot on the left, all the way to the democratic socialists (not to be mistaken for socdems).

mytailorisrich 7y ago

I think that the idea of private property as an inalienable right is rooted in the enlightenment and on the same level as human rights. It is to protect individuals against spoliation by the state or powerful, and even to assert an even more basic right to own property at all. It obviously does not mean that property cannot be taken away from its owner but that this must follow a fair and lawful process.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The Enlightenment never really worked this through. In fact modern economics hijacks a lot of humanist rhetoric (including the idea of rationality and human rights) and glues it rather awkwardly onto concepts that are actually derived from monarchy - specifically individual sovereignty, and a kind of individualised version of divine right which elevates unlimited individual economic freedom-to-profit as the highest possible good. It's actually a bit of a mess, conceptually and practically. Property is really not a simple concept. Most people think of it as "Stuff I own" which reduces the argument to "I don't want the government stealing my house or my furniture," which sounds trivially obvious. In fact all claims on property are complex - see also IP, stocks, and so on - and personal ownership is always a trade-off between individual benefits and socialised/externalised costs. This doesn't just apply to extreme situations like a war economy, or impounding the proceeds of crime - it's inherent in the practice itself. You won't find much about that in orthodox economics.
- atlih 7y ago
  Taxes are derived from monarchy as well.

cies 7y ago

Exactly. The difference between private (capital what you make money off) and personal (what make physical use in life) property is interesting. I propose to make the threshold between these two very crisp, expressed in a currency amount, say 20 million US. Also the folk against the eternal protection of priv prop is not all authoritarian commies. You find them a lot on the left, all the way to the democratic socialists (not to be mistaken for socdems).