Subject:
|
Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:37:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
480 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> Capitalism merely refers to an economic system in which the capital is
> controlled by private rather than public interests. All this "capitalists with
> a conscience" stuff is silly.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > True capitalism is more than just supply and demand, it requires recognition
> > of property rights. Selling stuff that you stole is just thuggery or
> > fencing, not capitalism.
>
> How do you figure? What you're discussing is either a matter of efficiency of
> the various models of capitalism that could exist or a matter of your personal
> aesthetic (or causaly, both). And what is a recognition of property rights?
> If you don't recognize property rights, then you didn't steal.
>
> > All rights are property rights. What is right is to respect them.
>
> I still want to know if you think that all people have a right to exist and
> whether that's a property right. And further, if you do think so (and I think
> you must), _where_ do they have a right to exist?
I agree that existence is a property right (and truly the most
fundamental one). This does imply a right to a place to exist. However,
assuming that the resources of the universe are limited, clearly one
doesn't have an unlimited right to exist. The right to exist must
therefore be acquired from someone else. I would say that it's pretty
clear that at some point, the parents are obligated to their children.
The big debate is WHEN this obligation arises. In my mind, this
obligation does arise at conception, BUT, given that there are not
infinite resources, there has to be a balancing of rights. I would also
argue that from the point of conception, the parents have a certain
right to "companionship". Interestingly, in this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/pets.property.ap/index.html
Colorado is exploring the possibility of recognizing a right of
companionship with animals. I think this is absolutely supportable. It
is no less of a property right than our acknowledgement that non-living
objects can have sentimental value, or that ideas themselves are
property. I think this proposed law is cool (though I share concern that
people may demand entitlements based on it).
I think what Chris is really trying to get to is what is our property
right to land. Land is one of the fundamental items if property.
Unfortunately, land in our world has not been distributed fairly.
There's also an issue of what are the rights of a wild animal. I don't
think they have zero rights.
If land was distributed fairly, then the issue of how the right of
existence relates to the right of land would be much simpler. Parents
would own a certain amount of land right, and would be obligated to
grant a certain portion of that to their children. Given that, it is
easy to see that parents must not bring a child into the world that they
will be unable to assure appropriate support for (giving up a child for
adoption provides one way out - assuming the adoption process can
provide the support to the child).
> > In this particular case the shuttle is property and it's clearly not
> > abandoned property, so the salvage rules don't apply. Interfering with
> > recovery of the property is at least theft if not interference with the
> > proper operation of an investigation.
>
> If you are careless with your model airplane and fly it into _my_ tree on _my_
> land, do you have unfettered right to collect the debris from _my_ land with or
> without my cooperation? Who's property is the debris? I'm not sure it's as
> simple as you've suggested.
Hmm, that's an interesting point, however I don't think that's a good
example to make the point. The valid point I see that your example
suggests is what rights exist to have an investigation made of a
possible violation of rights. I know that's a real tongue twister, so
lets change the example. Bob has been reported missing. Someone saw him
walk through Fred's land. Now there are at least two property rights
issues here.
The first is that Bob may have been tresspassing. In that case, Fred's
property rights to his land may justify use of lethal force on Bob. Or
Bob may have tripped and fell in a ravine. Or Bob may have fallen into
Fred's pool. Or Bob may have stepped on a land mine Fred placed to
protect his property.
Bob certainly has a property right to his health and life. An critical
point in this case is that Bob's property rights DO NOT DISAPPEAR. They
MAY become subservient to Fred's, but they NEVER disappear.
Clearly two rights are in conflict, so we need to involve a third party
to mediate the competing claims. I think therefore that a right to an
investigation of what happened derrives from both people's rights. This
justifies a search of Fred's land. The legal system in the USA has a
process for justifying that search if Fred won't consent.
Ok, back to the model airplane. Lets use Fred the land owner again, and
make Jane the owner of the model. Obviously Jane has a property right to
your model airplane. Fred has a property right to his land. Jane may ask
Fred for permission, in which case everything is cool. Fred may also ask
for compensation for the damage to his tree. In fact, the law in the USA
would support Fred making a claim in court for the damage to his tree.
Jane could also make a claim against Fred if Fred is unreasonable in
returning the model, assuming Jane indicates willingness to make
reasonable compensation. Since this is presumably a trivial case, the
law in the USA encourages these claims to be made in small claims court.
The judge in small claims court will most likely aim to get Fred and
Jane to make a reasonable settlement (Fred returns the model to Jane, or
compensates Jane if he has thrown it away and Jane compensates Fred for
any damage to the tree). They could try and bring the case to the normal
court system, but most likely any judge will throw the case out (unless
this is part of a long string of disputes). Basically the system in the
USA says that for cases where the value of property involved in the
dispute is small, that the full legal system does not come into play. A
search of Fred's land would probably not be granted in this case.
Now back to the Columbia. Obviously the above discussion indicates
several things:
- Land owners can not simply claim the debris from an accident that
lands on their land to be their property.
- The government in investigating and accident must get permission from
the property owner or a court (by way of a warrant) to search someone's
land for debris.
Another bit on searches. The law establishes that in conditions of
appropriate urgency, investigators may search property without
permission or a warrant. The investigators are required to justify their
search after the fact.
> > Fundamentally, if you think capitalism can operate without property rights,
> > your understanding of capitalism is flawed. The mafia are not capitalists.
>
> I'd say that the mafia are inefficient and ugly capitalists. But they
> certainly don't believe that everything is part of the common weal.
>
> > It's socialism that operates without respect for rights, not capitalism.
>
> I think that radical socialism and radical capitalism operate with
> fundamentally different understandings of what rights are and what role they
> play in policy making. But it's an oversimplification to say that just because
> one group disagrees with you on what should be thought a right(e.g. certain
> entitlements like healthcare), they don't respect rights.
I think the real problem here is that we don't really have solid
definitions of capitalism and socialism. Another problem is that we
don't have any examples of a real life pure capitalist system (or
socialism for that matter). Every system that has operated in the world
has really been some kind of mixture between capitalism, socialism, and
dictatorship/oligarchy.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
| (...) I think that one must agree to either: a) because people have a right to exist somewhere, space/volume/area/land is not a good in the normal sense and we have to figure out what it is and how we handle it, or b) because space/volume/area/land (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
| Capitalism merely refers to an economic system in which the capital is controlled by private rather than public interests. All this "capitalists with a conscience" stuff is silly. (...) How do you figure? What you're discussing is either a matter of (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
