5 ms·

Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. That's not true at all. Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by ani

by snitko 13y ago

Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. That's not true at all. Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. They don't have any kind of government. Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. Again, enforcing property rights != government. Government is just one way of doing it.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. Because it is. > Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. The power of the each individual, or collaborating group, to claim as much territory as they can effectively defend, independent of who held it before, is pretty much the opposite of what "property" and "property titles" are. > Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it Yes, you can. Now, there may be negative consequences to this, but, in the absence of a government to constrain the action of "private protection agencies" (which are, de facto, governments) exercising force to defend property, the same can be expected. In fact, where such private protection agencies have played a major role in protecting property (with or without the consent of whatever de jure government nominally operated in the area), retaliation against those who attempt to opt-out of their "protection" has been a frequent feature of their operation. > 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. I find it interesting that you posit "the rich can't buy better protection of their property rights than the poor" as a problem with government, but I think you'll find considerable disagreement on two grounds with that claim: * First, disagreement that the absence of equal protection is a problem, and * Second, disagreement that the absence of an ability for the rich to buy better protection is, in fact, a feature of government in the real world (however much it might be in some theoretical models.)
- snitko 13y ago
  Then you would have to give me your definition of what property is, because I think we might have a crucial disagreement on that and should start from there.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Well, property means that one holds resources regardless of one's strength with which to defend them.
    - snitko 13y ago
      I see. So by that definition guardian journalists should have their hard-drives in tact now. The problem with this assumption is that, while a nice idea, it is completely detached from reality and it obscures the truth. If I tell you that yes, I support equality for all, while at the same time I covertly abuse my power, it doesn't make everyone equal. It actually makes people more unequal, because it distorts their understanding of reality, which is that a more powerful player wins. If they falsely believe the promises of government that it wants more equality for all, they set themselves up. If, however, they understand that under any circumstances, the more powerful is gonna win, they will strive to compete, not to rely and beg.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Well yeah, but if you're talking about property as "might makes right", then there's no reason for the working class not to just rise up and take what's ours, ie: everything.
        snitko 13y ago
        It's been tried before. What happens when the working class rises and takes what's theirs is that after some time, a new elite emerges thanks to this working class, pretending to have the same values, while actually screwing this very same class even more. The crucial distinction to make here is what's yours and what's not. If people agree that one billionaire made his money honestly, by creating companies where people work voluntarily and that provide products and services people really need, thus actually creating value - then there can be no justification for anyone to go and take part or all of this billionaire's money. If they agree he stole his money or extracted them by force, then he's a criminal and all of the money he made in this way should be confiscated. But there's no middle ground here. You can't make a person kinda-guilty because he's rich. But back to "might makes right". The collective might of the people is always greater than the might of any organization, be it government or a corporation. If people understood the distinction of two ways to get rich I described above, they could easily support protection agencies that would prosecute criminals, but leave alone and protect rich people who made their money honestly. This kind of arrangement would promote a greater degree of equality. And we've seen this historically too: the great rises in standards of living for the poor happened where markets flourished and regulations were minimal (scandinavian countries including, read their policies throughout the 20th century). Yes, rich people became richer. But so did the poor.

by snitko 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. Because it is. > Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. The power of the each individual, or collaborating group, to claim as much territory as they can effectively defend, independent of who held it before, is pretty much the opposite of what "property" and "property titles" are. > Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it Yes, you can. Now, there may be negative consequences to this, but, in the absence of a government to constrain the action of "private protection agencies" (which are, de facto, governments) exercising force to defend property, the same can be expected. In fact, where such private protection agencies have played a major role in protecting property (with or without the consent of whatever de jure government nominally operated in the area), retaliation against those who attempt to opt-out of their "protection" has been a frequent feature of their operation. > 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. I find it interesting that you posit "the rich can't buy better protection of their property rights than the poor" as a problem with government, but I think you'll find considerable disagreement on two grounds with that claim: * First, disagreement that the absence of equal protection is a problem, and * Second, disagreement that the absence of an ability for the rich to buy better protection is, in fact, a feature of government in the real world (however much it might be in some theoretical models.)

snitko 13y ago
Then you would have to give me your definition of what property is, because I think we might have a crucial disagreement on that and should start from there.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Well, property means that one holds resources regardless of one's strength with which to defend them.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I see. So by that definition guardian journalists should have their hard-drives in tact now. The problem with this assumption is that, while a nice idea, it is completely detached from reality and it obscures the truth. If I tell you that yes, I support equality for all, while at the same time I covertly abuse my power, it doesn't make everyone equal. It actually makes people more unequal, because it distorts their understanding of reality, which is that a more powerful player wins. If they falsely believe the promises of government that it wants more equality for all, they set themselves up. If, however, they understand that under any circumstances, the more powerful is gonna win, they will strive to compete, not to rely and beg.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      Well yeah, but if you're talking about property as "might makes right", then there's no reason for the working class not to just rise up and take what's ours, ie: everything.
      - snitko 13y ago
        It's been tried before. What happens when the working class rises and takes what's theirs is that after some time, a new elite emerges thanks to this working class, pretending to have the same values, while actually screwing this very same class even more. The crucial distinction to make here is what's yours and what's not. If people agree that one billionaire made his money honestly, by creating companies where people work voluntarily and that provide products and services people really need, thus actually creating value - then there can be no justification for anyone to go and take part or all of this billionaire's money. If they agree he stole his money or extracted them by force, then he's a criminal and all of the money he made in this way should be confiscated. But there's no middle ground here. You can't make a person kinda-guilty because he's rich. But back to "might makes right". The collective might of the people is always greater than the might of any organization, be it government or a corporation. If people understood the distinction of two ways to get rich I described above, they could easily support protection agencies that would prosecute criminals, but leave alone and protect rich people who made their money honestly. This kind of arrangement would promote a greater degree of equality. And we've seen this historically too: the great rises in standards of living for the poor happened where markets flourished and regulations were minimal (scandinavian countries including, read their policies throughout the 20th century). Yes, rich people became richer. But so did the poor.