I have had this recurring dream and/or thought. I share it not because it means anything in particular to me, but in the hopes it may mean something to someone else.
I see a faucet that has a bucket underneath. The bucket has a hole in it. I need water in the bucket, so I have to let the water run. But the faucet leaks (and alternately slows), so I have to continuously adjust the faucet to keep enough water in the bucket.
I cannot rest. The faucet may slow down or speed up. I cannot just turn it up or down on the chance it will slow down or speed up, because the faucet is random (or seemingly so). I cannot just go fix the faucet because the bucket has a hole in it. I can't just go get another bucket, because I need to keep water in the bucket.
Working the faucet works. It is just so much....work.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Was Proudhon right?
I have been reading a lot of political economic theory lately. Mostly Libertarian Socialist. But it has gotten me thinking about the nature of property. Proudhon seemed to think there were two different concepts: private property and personal property.
One could, of course, own personal property. You have your clothes, your glasses, your shoes, etc. You even may have money. They are most definitely YOURS. You possess them. Surely, someone cannot take these articles from you without causing you a damage.
But, on the other hand, we discuss PRIVATE property as a thing. So you can "own" land you have never seen and never visited. It is possible you don't even know you own it, as you could have "purchased" it as part of an investment.
We protect these equally.
But should we? Of course, no one should take your home. But if you simply are not making productive use of something and someone else needs it, or can make productive use of it, then what is the purpose of protecting your inchoate interest? Protection of such an interest serves only to perpetuate the tendency of money to make money, but serves no useful purpose to society other than to increase capital. In fact, it could be argued by taking away the ability of someone else to use the property, we have actually decreased productivity.
Do not take this question as meaning that all retirement savings or other investments should be socialized or that private property should necessarily be abolished. The aggregation of money for investment is extremely important for large projects and can serve the public interest.
However, is it not also possible that we should recognize the distinction between what is essentially a human need for personal property that is inviolate and preserved to them as the fruits of their labors and the private property that is nothing more than property as exists on paper? Such a distinction could have profound impacts on the way we view the environment, agriculture, energy, and all consumer goods. I don't suggest an answer, but let's have the debate.
One could, of course, own personal property. You have your clothes, your glasses, your shoes, etc. You even may have money. They are most definitely YOURS. You possess them. Surely, someone cannot take these articles from you without causing you a damage.
But, on the other hand, we discuss PRIVATE property as a thing. So you can "own" land you have never seen and never visited. It is possible you don't even know you own it, as you could have "purchased" it as part of an investment.
We protect these equally.
But should we? Of course, no one should take your home. But if you simply are not making productive use of something and someone else needs it, or can make productive use of it, then what is the purpose of protecting your inchoate interest? Protection of such an interest serves only to perpetuate the tendency of money to make money, but serves no useful purpose to society other than to increase capital. In fact, it could be argued by taking away the ability of someone else to use the property, we have actually decreased productivity.
Do not take this question as meaning that all retirement savings or other investments should be socialized or that private property should necessarily be abolished. The aggregation of money for investment is extremely important for large projects and can serve the public interest.
However, is it not also possible that we should recognize the distinction between what is essentially a human need for personal property that is inviolate and preserved to them as the fruits of their labors and the private property that is nothing more than property as exists on paper? Such a distinction could have profound impacts on the way we view the environment, agriculture, energy, and all consumer goods. I don't suggest an answer, but let's have the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)