3 ms·

You start describing parts of how the deal works, but not the de jure or de facto reality of its intention and operation in the real world. >property rights do

You start describing parts of how the deal works, but not the de jure or de facto reality of its intention and operation in the real world. >property rights do not evaporate... It's called the Sherman Act in the US, and it's why Microsoft was told what to do with their property - similar to MSFTs forced debundling in Europe. It's the state saying "You're outside of the deal, make these changes (to your property) to increase competition, which we know will costing you lots of money (i.e. property)". There are many other laws that regulate anti-competitive behavior, eminent domain, patent violation in times of war, etc. that are all pro-social but sacrifice property rights.

sageikosa 14y ago
I also mention that this is how a government built on a system of justice works, I do not claim to place that moniker "de facto" on any particular government (in whole or in part). Rights don't come from the state, they are a consequence of individuals needing to be able to act upon long range plans while interacting with others, and to be assured that values they have acquired will still be at their disposal in the future. One only needs rights to things one plans to use when other potential users may contend for it. Relying on a social order that defends rights is in one's best long-range interests. Laws that define and penalize "anti-competitive" behavior are orthogonal to capitalism, in that capitalism isn't about competition, it is about investment and return. From a legal standpoint (principles of justice notwithstanding), the remedy for anti-trust behavior is rationalized not as a complete termination of property rights (destruction or redistribution), but commands to take or cease action (interference) to compensate "injured parties", or forced reorganization to hinder the offending activity from recurring. Nominally the property still exists with its owner(s), although it has become encumbered or splintered into multiple properties. The ability for a government to own and acquire real estate puts it at odds with (perhaps) its chief purpose, defense of the property of the citizens, especially when it gives itself the coercive power to grab when all else fails. Suspension of rights in times of war is why we are warned about the rise of the total state under conditions of total war. The "war on terror" is the current excuse for the non-defense of many rights, not just property.

sageikosa 14y ago

I also mention that this is how a government built on a system of justice works, I do not claim to place that moniker "de facto" on any particular government (in whole or in part). Rights don't come from the state, they are a consequence of individuals needing to be able to act upon long range plans while interacting with others, and to be assured that values they have acquired will still be at their disposal in the future. One only needs rights to things one plans to use when other potential users may contend for it. Relying on a social order that defends rights is in one's best long-range interests. Laws that define and penalize "anti-competitive" behavior are orthogonal to capitalism, in that capitalism isn't about competition, it is about investment and return. From a legal standpoint (principles of justice notwithstanding), the remedy for anti-trust behavior is rationalized not as a complete termination of property rights (destruction or redistribution), but commands to take or cease action (interference) to compensate "injured parties", or forced reorganization to hinder the offending activity from recurring. Nominally the property still exists with its owner(s), although it has become encumbered or splintered into multiple properties. The ability for a government to own and acquire real estate puts it at odds with (perhaps) its chief purpose, defense of the property of the citizens, especially when it gives itself the coercive power to grab when all else fails. Suspension of rights in times of war is why we are warned about the rise of the total state under conditions of total war. The "war on terror" is the current excuse for the non-defense of many rights, not just property.