Should private ownership be abolished?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: Yes it should.

Private ownership only just causes greed. I think everything should be socially owned. Social ownership is when everyone in a particular society owns something. This differs from public ownership because in public ownership, just the government owns something. I think, too that we should create an economic system where everything is socially owned, that there would be no money, and that the government wouldn't control the factors of production or every aspect of your personal life.

MayCaesar

Would you agree with the following argument that applies the same reasoning to a different phenomenon?

"Personal romantic and sexual relations only cause jealousy. I think all romantic and sexual partners should be socially owned."

So that an attractive lady could not exclusively engage in intercourse with one man, but was shared equally among all men (and women too who may desire her).

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar No. I'm saying private ownership of goods.

MayCaesar

@theinfectedmaster

In the example I outlined, personal romantic and sexual relations are goods. You can even buy sex on the market: they call selling it "the oldest profession in the world". And in many countries even today certain aspects of these relations are owned by men/husbands.

If I cannot privately own a house, why should I be able to privately own my reproductive organ?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Well you arent allowed to own a private room or bed anyway so i guess anyone could just join in on the fun.

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster said:

Private ownership only just causes greed. I think everything should be socially owned. Social ownership is when everyone in a particular society owns something. This differs from public ownership because in public ownership, just the government owns something. I think, too that we should create an economic system where everything is socially owned, that there would be no money, and that the government wouldn't control the factors of production or every aspect of your personal life.

I think you have made a distinction without a difference between public ownership and social ownership.  Let's say you need a car to get to work.  Who pays for your car?  Your gas?  Who pays for your car's safety inspection?  Whose paying the guy who works at the gas station and the garage to keep the car running?  If you don't own it, then who bought it and pays for it?  It seems to me that you are really just arguing for an extreme form of communism (at least in Cuba, Cuba let's people own their own car).  It seems like the government would be paying for everything, and then you would be paying them back in taxes and fees.   If not, explain how your car will get paid for?  

Tell me who decides who gets which house?  Some houses are nicer than others.  Do only the rich get beach homes and mansions?.  How does this 'rent but can't own' scheme of your's work?  In Cuba, the government owns the homes.  Someone pays a 'fee' to keep it while they are alive, but the moment they die anyone can pay the fee (say $1,500)  and kick out any living family from the guy who 'rented' it before.  Would your scheme work like that; where people pay an outrageous amount for housing, compared to their government salary, and then can't pass it on to their spouse or kids?

theinfectedmaster

@just_sayin No. I'm saying a more libertarian form of it where we wouldn't have money and that the government wouldn't control the factors of production or regulate what you can do with the items so much or your personal life. I don't know why you marked my answer as a fallacy when there was nothing fallible about it.

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster said:

@just_sayin No. I'm saying a more libertarian form of it where we wouldn't have money and that the government wouldn't control the factors of production or regulate what you can do with the items so much or your personal life. I don't know why you marked my answer as a fallacy when there was nothing fallible about it.

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all.  I don't believe you understand libertarian philosophy. Libertarians value freedom, especially freedom to associate and pursue your own career.  Libertarianism believes everyone should be able to maximize their potential earnings. 

You ignored my questions.  Again, who pays for the car?  Who pays for the gas?  Who pays the gas station worker and mechanic? 

Do people work for no pay under your system?  And if you think that would work, then what benefit would it be for me to work, if I get paid the same as the guy who doesn't? Do professions that require extra schooling and long hours like Doctors and lawyers make the same as cooks at McDonalds?  If not, then who decides what people get paid for what job? And why would that be fair? Why would anyone take any risks to invent something if there is no financial reward for them to do so?  

theinfectedmaster

@just_sayin Libertarians also support free speech, autonomy with physical items, gay rights, gun rights, transgender rights, abortion rights, no mask mandates, no vaccine mandates, and school choice rights. They also believe in having limited interference with people's lives, so I don't think you really explained the whole picture.

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster said:

@just_sayin Libertarians also support free speech, autonomy with physical items, gay rights, gun rights, transgender rights, abortion rights, no mask mandates, no vaccine mandates, and school choice rights. They also believe in having limited interference with people's lives, so I don't think you really explained the whole picture.

Libertarians are split on abortion.  Some see it as a right of the mother, others see the child has a right to life.  Depending on what gay right or transgender right you are talking about, you will find differing arguments also among libertarians.  I recommend reading reason.com

Again, you didn't answer my questions:

who pays for the car?  Who pays for the gas?  Who pays the gas station worker and mechanic? 

Do people work for no pay under your system?  And if you think that would work, then what benefit would it be for me to work, if I get paid the same as the guy who doesn't? Do professions that require extra schooling and long hours like Doctors and lawyers make the same as cooks at McDonalds?  If not, then who decides what people get paid for what job? And why would that be fair? Why would anyone take any risks to invent something if there is no financial reward for them to do so?  

just_sayin

theinfectedmaster 
why are you not answering the questions asked of you.

When people don't own something, they don't treat it well.  Think I'm wrong.  How do you treat a rental car?  I know that when driving one it sees more air time than Tony Hawk at the X games.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Some goods and services works best under private other with public.

Finally, some works best private but with government supervision. Suggesting these dramatic shifts to society are not helpful according to the book 9.9% by Matthew Stewart.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

Could you please name a single good or service that in the same society existed both in the public and the private form, and in which wealthy people able to afford both would typically choose the public one?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Private and public prisons.

@MayCaesar

Who would choose a private prison that let's dangerous criminals go free? For whatever reason public prisons just work better.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

I have never heard of private prisons that let dangerous criminals go free. Do you have a society in mind in which this is/was a common practice?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Was an article I read a while back, I cannot find now.

@MayCaesar

Private prisons cut corners to save money that make criminals more likely to escape. Other examples are the disaterious private firefighters in Alaska that would literally let your house down if you didn't pay. Never mind that fire can spread and burn down your neighbors' house. Private courts are a disaster.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

Do you have any arguments in support of these claims? Simply proclaiming, for instance, that "private courts are a disaster" is not an argument, nor does it address my question. My original question was:

"Could you please name a single good or service that in the same society existed both in the public and the private form, and in which wealthy people able to afford both would typically choose the public one?"

I would like to create a rare precedent on this website in which someone actually answers someone else's question, and you have the opportunity to contribute to creation of that precedent!

DonsonRonaldTheIII

Argument Topic: Justice requires that we abolish private property, or at least fundamentally change it.

If we take justice to mean 'fairness', then there is not any question that private property ought to be abolished. A simple line of reasoning here: If we are all born equals, do we not have equal rights to the natural opportunities in the land we are born to? If we don't have an equal claim to the natural opportunities the land holds, who does? What could justify their taking of the land? These three questions can be answered in a few ways to meet the demands of justice. One, the owner of private land is required to pay rent to literally every person in the world, or within state borders (assuming states exist). This rent could be a payment of .00012 cents to everyone, totaling something like $500 a month. This is essentially the 'price of injustice'. Another view includes the idea of collective ownership, wherein everyone owns everything together, and the economic system is without any real stratification. This would be similar to the 'rent' scenario, but more communist.

There are other ways of characterizing the idea that private property could be made anew, but they're pretty heady and don't need to be said in light of these more digestible, practical ideas. 

MichaelElpers

@DonsonRonaldTheIII

No one is born completely equal to anyone one else.  We all have different iqs, body types, ect.  Even if you got rid of private property you could not make access to the natural resources equal.

In addition you created an endless cycle.  Lets say you got rid of private property, than i under your fair system obtained resources. Someone else is born and so now you must take away my resources.  No one could acquire resources period under these ideals.

MayCaesar

DonsonRonaldTheIII said:

If we take justice to mean 'fairness', then there is not any question that private property ought to be abolished. A simple line of reasoning here: If we are all born equals, do we not have equal rights to the natural opportunities in the land we are born to? If we don't have an equal claim to the natural opportunities the land holds, who does? What could justify their taking of the land? These three questions can be answered in a few ways to meet the demands of justice. One, the owner of private land is required to pay rent to literally every person in the world, or within state borders (assuming states exist). This rent could be a payment of .00012 cents to everyone, totaling something like $500 a month. This is essentially the 'price of injustice'. Another view includes the idea of collective ownership, wherein everyone owns everything together, and the economic system is without any real stratification. This would be similar to the 'rent' scenario, but more communist.

There are other ways of characterizing the idea that private property could be made anew, but they're pretty heady and don't need to be said in light of these more digestible, practical ideas. 

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of "fairness". We are absolutely not born equal in all respects, but from certain philosophical viewpoints we are born equal in particular respects - perhaps, equal in some interpretation of "inherent worth". But "fairness" refers to how people are treated, not to how they are born, right?

To me "fairness" means something like "equal treatment in equal conditions". Say, in chess if you checkmate your opponent, you win - and it should not matter what the color of your skin is, how thick your wallet is, or how popular you are, as long as the conditions of the win are met. Applying the rules of chess equally to everyone constitutes fair treatment.
When applied to property, it would mean something like "everyone is subjected to the same standards of acquiring and keeping property". If I can buy a bag of apples from a grocer upon mutual agreement, then so can anyone else. Everyone plays the same game and the same rules are applied to everyone.

This, however, does not mean that everyone gets the same outcome. It does not mean that everyone is guaranteed a bag of apples no matter what to do, or a win in chess. It does not mean that a piece of property can be used by anyone who wishes to use it. The rules of the game may be the same, but the initial cards dealt may be different, the players' styles and skill levels may be different, the RNG may favor different players differently, and so on. You all play the same game in the same casino, but your outcomes are not the same - and that is perfectly fair.

It would not be fair for me to walk into your house, which you have put a lot of effort into building/buying/maintaining, sit down on your couch, munch on your chips and have sex with your girlfriend. It would be fair for me to build/buy my own house, put a lot of effort into it, sit down on my couch, munch on my chips and have sex with my girlfriend - and close the door to any interlopers, including you.