The Socio-Political Dangers Of A Long Depression

[MediumTex]

Medium Tex

Wealth must exist before it can be squandered, and the government doesn't create wealth, it confiscates it.  There must be a "confiscatee" in this story, that's all I'm saying, and it's mostly a theoretical point because the actual dollars that the government is spending in the short run do mostly come out of thin air.  With no underlying productive economy to sponge off of, though, that arrangement quickly falls apart.  It's the productivity of the underlying private sector the makes parties willing to loan the U.S. government money on favorable terms that is then used to attempt to change the world and/or human nature through state action.

The fact is though that in many many cases the employees wouldn't create the wealth unless the company owners were organizing and directing things and similarly the private sector would not create wealth unless the government was there protecting property rights, ensuring peace, order and opportunity etc etc. You see a private sector flourishing where there is a functioning government that does its job well and knows its place.

You are describing a government of limited scope and reach that would perhaps be consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

I would be fine with a government like that with tightly limited powers.

[moda0306]

Decisions about what the federal government should be able to do, as well as interpretations as to who the constitution protected, were made by few men, elected by few white "land-owning" men.  I'm not saying there weren't some wonderful ideas wrapped into the Constitution, but simply that we shouldn't hold ourselves to the interpretation of a document held by some, but not millions of others.  I wonder what the desired role of government would have been had the poor, slaves, women, or Indians had a say.

In fact, the initial set-up of our government didn't allow many people to vote at all, and we never voted directly for the president.  Should we take things back to that time?

I have very mixed feelings about the Constitution and founding of our country.  Sometimes I feel like it was nothing more than a bunch of less-tyrannical plutocrats trying to control what more tyrannical ones did before.  These guys definitely moved the ball forward, but I question to whose interpretation of the Constitution we should hold ourselves, if the initial interpretation involves all the negatives that we now realize.

[moda0306]

The government may not create wealth, directly, but it does facilitate the creation of wealth.  Does anyone think that a metropolitan area could be as productive as they are without government?

Further, the private sector doesn't really create all the wealth, either.  A lot of wealth is in the form of natural resources.  When the government assigns those natural resources to one person, but not another, is that not also a form of "organized confiscation" designed to prevent the tragedy of commons?

[MachineGhost]

The government may not create wealth, directly, but it does facilitate the creation of wealth.  Does anyone think that a metropolitan area could be as productive as they are without government?

Don't you really mean that security and stability facilitates the creation of wealth?  This is not a role unique to government; just one it has historically expropriated to itself for the color of legitimate authority.

Further, the private sector doesn't really create all the wealth, either.  A lot of wealth is in the form of natural resources.  When the government assigns those natural resources to one person, but not another, is that not also a form of "organized confiscation" designed to prevent the tragedy of commons?

You have it backwards.  There is no such thing as a "commons" without government first coercing everyone of their inherent private property rights.  The "tragedy of the commons" comes about because of a lack of any incentive to take care of the property being exploited.  No one would willingly shoot off their own foot when their own livelihood is at stake.  I could be wrong about this, but rent-seeking behavior cannot exist in an evironment of 100% self-ownership.

But, if you want to argue that government can be a "positive rights" mechanism for defending private property (no argument from me), then you better be onboard for eradicating the "commons" and having every available resource be propertized in a matrix of self-ownership and self-responsibility (i.e. legal liability).  This is sorely needed in the world's oceans to combat overfishing and species destruction.  Instead, we cling to naive Progressive fantasies like the "commons" where no one is responsible and inefficient coercion drives the allocation of scarce resources rather than profitable self-interest.

[moda0306]

"Commons" are the natural order of a society free of any government or coercion.  Your idea that government "privatize" what is not inherently private is social engineering... Just in a form that works extremely well in many cases, and makes people who own it feel free.

I think there are plenty of paradoxes and problems within private property, but for the most part it works pretty damn well... I just don't kid myself that it's rooted in pure liberty.  Natural resources are simply NOT inherently private.  Of course it helps to designate them as such to help maintain productivity, privacy and permanent households and family units, but it's not inherently private.

So I really think it's you who has it backwards, with all due respect.  I see little to convince me that natural resources have any business "belonging" to Peter, but not to Paul, in a purely natural sense.

[Benko]

I love how every economic crisis allows the anti-capitalist maroons to come out of the woodwork and blame capitalism for statist failures.

Four-five years on, I'm beyond tired of reading about it.

MG check out this cartoon from 1934 chicago tribune 

[MachineGhost]

"Commons" are the natural order of a society free of any government or coercion.  Your idea that government "privatize" what is not inherently private is social engineering... Just in a form that works extremely well in many cases, and makes people who own it feel free.

To be technically accurate, "privatization" is just the government getting out of the way of imposing the "commons" hallucinotion upon property it doesn't have any lawful or moral right to claim ownership of.  So I actually see the "commons" as coercive social engineering, whereas private property is the default state of biology.

Seriously, it takes an act of social engineering for you to first own your own mind and body?  If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it is simply preposterous!  All life is private property.  All respect for life is due to private property.  It is a spontaneous, emergent property requiring no social engineering and no government.  It is what it is.

I think there are plenty of paradoxes and problems within private property, but for the most part it works pretty damn well... I just don't kid myself that it's rooted in pure liberty.  Natural resources are simply NOT inherently private.  Of course it helps to designate them as such to help maintain productivity, privacy and permanent households and family units, but it's not inherently private.

Well, I just think you continue to conflate the symptoms of natural private property conflicts with its inherent origins.  In theory, illegitimate government expropriated and monopolized all coercion over a given territory to minimize such conflicts.  Does that then make government legitimate?  Apparantely, the empirical outcome to date seems to suggest so even though it is a very, very spotty record.  Does it mean it is the most efficient and most just approach?  Heck no!

So I really think it's you who has it backwards, with all due respect.  I see little to convince me that natural resources have any business "belonging" to Peter, but not to Paul, in a purely natural sense.

I'm not convinced by your arguments either.   But, it seems to me you're overturning centuries of what has become accepted wisdom as to what constitutes "natural property rights".  So it seems like you have a very modern re-interpretation: private property only first exists contingent upon conditions.  So who gets to decide those conditions as to whether or not I own my own mind, body and all the fruits of my labor, including any and all property I lay claim to and put into productive use that doesn't transgress upon anyone else?

[stone]

Machine Ghost, before anyone arrived, in for instance North America, presumably you agree that it was "free of ownership" just as the air we breath is today. Then, I guess, it became loosely divided up into various tribal lands and then those were expropriated by Europeans.
I think it is vital to remember how much of the world was lived in by nomadic people until very recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad. In some cases land really was used as a "free of ownership" resource much as the air we breath is today. I guess in principle someone could lay claim to all of the air and start charging us rent for it.

[MachineGhost]

I think it is vital to remember how much of the world was lived in by nomadic people until very recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad. In some cases land really was used as a "free of ownership" resource much as the air we breath is today. I guess in principle someone could lay claim to all of the air and start charging us rent for it.

Just because humans chose to be nomadic doesn't mean private propoerty didn't exist.  There are established common law rules for claiming exogenous private property, none that involve a government or scribbles on paper.

Does a tiger not mark and defend its territory?  Where is its government to legitimize it?

[Pointedstick]

I think it is vital to remember how much of the world was lived in by nomadic people until very recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad. In some cases land really was used as a "free of ownership" resource much as the air we breath is today. I guess in principle someone could lay claim to all of the air and start charging us rent for it.

Just because humans chose to be nomadic doesn't mean private propoerty didn't exist.  There are established common law rules for claiming exogenous private property, none that involve a government or scribbles on paper.

Does a tiger not mark and defend its territory?  Where is its government to legitimize it?

The shark legitimizes it with its teeth, which I think is Moda's point. Non-government-enforced private property needs to be enforced by the claimant him or herself or some other organization the claimant has chosen. You can yell about your property all day, but in the end it's only yours if you can defend it against those who would try to take it.

[MachineGhost]

The shark legitimizes it with its teeth, which I think is Moda's point. Non-government-enforced private property needs to be enforced by the claimant him or herself or some other organization the claimant has chosen. You can yell about your property all day, but in the end it's only yours if you can defend it against those who would try to take it.

That's not what I understand moda's point to be.  His point is private property simply doesn't exist without a bunch of mafioso legitimatizing it through a monopoly of violence over the territory that includes you property.  That's what I've been disagreeing with in our debates.

[moda0306]

Sorry for the delay, Fellas...

MG,

I actually was going to respond stating that the traditional use of the term "commons" as something enforced by government as such wasn't really what I was talking about.  I was stating that without government, we are simply hap-hazardly claiming property to be "ours" and defending it as such... but let me back up and split property up into two categories... First, is our bodies, minds, and creative output, which I definitely deem to be "our own" in a wholly "natural" way.  Also, we have to engage our natural world around us in some basic way, so saying that there is absolutely no natural claim to some limited amount of those resources is a stretch... I'll admit.  However, the vast, vast sums of land, oil, beach-front property, etc, are hardly "naturally" someone's to own, and I don't care if I'm going against centuries of mis-thought... you can't convince me that simply because you can point to it, plant a flag on it, build a house on it, drill oil from it, and shoot people if they "tresspass" on it, means there is some natural connection there. 

So we can have "private property" without government that's legitimate... and that would be our minds, bodies, and some limited level of abundant natural resources that we use to give us shelter, no different than a squirrel in a log.  "Owning" and dictating the use of vast swaths of land is not in any way natural, though... IMHO.  The government coordinates that process to a huge degree.

Further, even if it were perfectly "natural" that some land baron would own the California coast because he says so, there's simply no way for a society to recognize that unless 1) he's able to defend that claim on his own, or 2) the government helps him defend that claim through deeds and courts.  If the city of Manhattan were to tear up all its deeds and fire all its judges, all the lovers of private property on that island would watch their net worth collapse in seconds.  The government must be doing something pretty useful for them, if that's the case.  Our society simply would fall apart if our governments didn't recognize/defend our Property, no matter whether it's "naturally" ours or not.  If we are simply to be Tigers "marking" our property then are we free to maul each other in public for food/wealth?  I thought the whole point of Property was to create some order and legitimacy around ownership, and not just a game of "who's got the biggest guns."  

Also, Common Law is very closely tied to government operations, so I'm wondering where you are going with the assertion that these laws exist without government.

[MachineGhost]

Good response!  I will throw you a bone and admit you have something there between private property of oneself and that of the external natural world.  However, I loathe to point out that because of so much fuzzy thinking on this kind of subject, a lot of people do not believe or act as if you do own your own mind or body.  Like the FDA for a notorious example.  If we're going to be in the business of providing "positive rights" through coercion vs "negative rights" vs voluntarianism, then its going to be very sloppy with a lot of innocent victims imprisoned or killed that dare challenge any illegitimate authority.

I thought the whole point of Property was to create some order and legitimacy around ownership, and not just a game of "who's got the biggest guns."

I see the point of private property as to ensure one's own authoritative survival, not provide order and legitimacy.  Conflict resolution over private property is where we get jurisprudence.  So far, historically, that has been a monopolized function of monarchy that has spilled over into representative democracy.  It's certainly not an activity exclusive to government, but we haven't evolved to the next step yet of voluntary competition between legal systems to generate better outcomes.

Also, Common Law is very closely tied to government operations, so I'm wondering where you are going with the assertion that these laws exist without government.

As I understand it, common law is about local customs and judicial decisions passed down through the centuries through real world experiences of "negative rights".  The Magna Carta is a stellar example of such "negative rights".  Such decisions can be from the chief of a nomadic tribe or some other non-governmental authority just as much as some black-robed judge in the Supreme Court today.

Lets take the perfect anarchic society where all resources are allocated on a 100% voluntary basis, including justice, law enforcement and military defense.  There would still have to be an authority of last resort that everyone would have to respect as the final answer.  The difference between today and that future is we're all forced into the system and its so-called questionable authorities, for it was not a choice made willingly and free of threat, duress or coercion.  I think it's very important to realize that all current government conflates authority and coercion.  Always.  One has to have a thin veneer of legitimacy to cover up what is inherently illegitimate.