The Role of Government
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
So you do want government to enforce capitalist exchange.
To elaborate on the point though, I believe that having things as private property decreases the likelihood of wasting resources like empty buildings in places where people would want to live. Why would you waste an asset like that when you could sell it? Of course it will happen, but not as much as it would happen if it didn't belong to anyone, IMO.
Yes, if that's how you define it. It wouldn't stop you from allowing people to live in your empty building or from pooling your resources to acheive a common goal with other people, but you wouldn't be able to impose that on others or appropriate their property to do it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That would be why there are no vacant properties around at the moment, then.
Well I did say that it will happen with private property, but it's still not as wasteful as not having property rights at all. Why would anyone even build a house if they didn't have the right to own it?
How do you define vacant? If I take a 6 month contract away from home, should I lose my house?
How do you define vacant? If I take a 6 month contract away from home, should I lose my house?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'd have thought anti-squatter boards would qualify as vacant.
I can think of three buildings within a five minute walk of my house that have such boards up.
I can think of three buildings within a five minute walk of my house that have such boards up.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Also, who would clean the toilets?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
oh wait, sorry, that's a couple of pages down the line
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, if the way they have 'secured' it also means that they can't use it either.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
What about people who don't own any property? Do they not have any rights?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
This is not borne out by reality though is it?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Do the people who build houses get to own them? Must tell that to my labourer mates!
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Use in what way? To live in? Or as a capital asset?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Does what matter? The type of "use"?
Well obviously I think it does, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it! Why do you think I think it matters?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
If the society paid them to build, why not? They have homes they go back to, why should the building of houses in a scocialist context be something alien to the paid builders? You should not sell the ground the people walk upon
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, I mean what personal price, in terms of the diminution of other freedoms and rights, are you prepared to pay to the state so that they guarantee your property rights?
I mean does it matter if the house is the owners residence or a capital asset? If it's an investment it would make much more sense to have it rented out, hence someone is living in it anyway.
So who decides where the houses are built, ow they are built, Who gets to build them and so on. Whenever this sort of thing has been tried it just ends up going wrong, becasue all the incentives are in the wrong place.
People given the freedom to build houses how and where they like are much more likely to build better houses and want to live in them.
The freedom to steal, the freedom to hit people I don't like and the freedom to smash stuff. Otherwise, I don't really see what freedoms we would need to give up.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Buildings are often left empty, but are still capital assets on a balance sheet. Why do I think this matters? Because a house has a use value as a roof over someone's head - a fairly important need. Treating basic needs like this as capital assets (exchange values) merely to satisfy someone's greed is fucked up IMO.
moon23 said:
Errrr...people?
moon23 said:
Whenever what has been tried?
moon23 said:
How are you going to "give" someone the freedom if they don't own any property in the first place? This is the problem with property rights - it gives rights only to people with property.
moon23 said:
...and if you don't own property? What about freedom to have a roof over your head?
There's no great incentive to leave buildings empty and usually a pretty good incentive to have them in use. Of course it happens from time to time, but I think that is somewhat inevitable whatever the system. The fact that they are a capital asset is also an incentive to build and improve buildings.
Which people would decide where to build houses and on what basis? If you mean basically build anywhere you own land then I'm all for it. Abolishing the planning laws would be the easiest way.
The UK built thousands of council houses in the 50s and 60s, and lots of these are now empty. Every northern town has it's share. The problem is they built them where they thought people should live, but not where people wanted or needed to live.
Property is bought, sold and rented. I don't see that you have a right to be provided with a roof over your head at all times, as this places a big burden on other people. There's a difference between having the right to do something and having the ability.
Which people would decide where to build houses and on what basis? If you mean basically build anywhere you own land then I'm all for it. Abolishing the planning laws would be the easiest way.
The UK built thousands of council houses in the 50s and 60s, and lots of these are now empty. Every northern town has it's share. The problem is they built them where they thought people should live, but not where people wanted or needed to live.
Property is bought, sold and rented. I don't see that you have a right to be provided with a roof over your head at all times, as this places a big burden on other people. There's a difference between having the right to do something and having the ability.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're either missing or evading the point I'm trying to make, which is that if you prioritise the right to personal property, you may have to forego not dreck like you're willing to concede, but other real and necessary rights and freedoms; freedom of conscience, for example, could be viewed as antipathetic to a political system that set property rights as the keystone of legislative legitimacy. You may wish to sell your birthright for a mess of pottage, but I suspect that most people aren't quite that reductive and right-libertarian in their thinking.
You don't see any conflict between enclosure and commons? Private property is a right to exclude.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
*bangs head*
Yes it is, however I also see conflict if the state controlled all the land as well. So maybe the question is why in both circumstances would we see conflict and which is the better of the two options.. or more to the point is a balance required between public land and private land?
I personally prefer the latter of the options. The state can protect public parks, national parks and historic buildings, so all members of the public reagrdless of wealth can enjoy them. The private sphere is exactly that, something removed from government interference and where people should have some right to exclude others.
Similar threads
