Locke's proviso

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Locke's proviso proves an entertaining read for apologists of private property. In a world where land is seen as valuable, even without noticeable improvements, how does one go about making sure there's enough land of the same value left over for others wanting it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

Georgists subscribe to the idea that you must pay economic rent to the community as a whole, but after that the property belongs to you. The demand for welfare, according to most georgists, would be settled through democracy. It's only a short step away from saying the community can then dictate what to do with these resources.

But I'm willing to learn. How do you, "capitalists," defend private land acquisition? Can I urinate in sand and call it mine? Can I own the minerals beneath my property? How so? Who will enforce these procedures?

No skimpy responses, please - unless necessary.

[pusher robot]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.

[Herman]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.

Well aren't you a pocket full of fire crackers!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.
Translation: "I know we don't have any decent answers to these questions, so we shouldn't give him an opportunity to prove it to everyone else."

[RedAnarchist]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c272/smi-o/New%20pix/its-a-trap-cat.gif

[pusher robot]

Translation: "I know we don't have any decent answers to these questions, so we shouldn't give him an opportunity to prove it to everyone else."


Do you really think he doesn't already know the answers to these questions? Of course he does. He has an argument he wants to make, but rather than just state it directly he wants to simply pick at other people's arguments. It's a waste of time trying to give good-faith answers to his questions, since he already knows what he wants to say, he's just trying to have other people do all the work so he doesn't have to say something substantive himself. "I'm willing to learn." Horseshit. Why should anyone even have a conversation with such a bald-faced liar?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Gene, I think you hurt pusher's feelings. :crying:

:lol:

[Publius]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.

IT'S A TRAP!

Sorry.

I don't know if this is "obvious trolling"; you're correct to point out what he's trying to do, but the Lockean Proviso really is a difficulty for capitalist ideology, since it's largely based on Locke's ideas.

I still don't think capitalists have supplied a sufficient answer to some of the claims Locke made.

[IcarusAngel]

Sometimes, it is necessary to call someone to the plate. If someone's blatantly lying, and is continually lying, and you can tell, it's right to ask them to start backing themselves up (post their sources, post their credentials, ask them a specific question, and so on). I do it all the time if someone deserves it, and it's not characteristic of "trolling."

The fact is, capitalists have been unable to come up with a coherent explanation for absolutist property rights that will even convince most Americans (or, people from the European countries), let alone most Socialists. A lot of their explanations have to do with "natural rights," "self-ownership," etc. and "proofs" so ludicrous it would embarrass a third grader well acquainted with the concept of a proofs; proofs that are, in essence, along the lines of Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God.

Anyway, Georgism is really the only system approaching a coherent, progressive, rational approach to capitalism, if you can really call their beliefs capitalist. It is the only capitalism that would be worth defending. In the US, we actually have some Georgism in our tax code, but it's unfortunately offset by the huge favoritism corporations receives, that goes well above their actual contributions.

I also think it could be seen as Marxist in a certain sense, as the goal is to curb out of control property, and then Marxist like communities could restrict tyrannical property ownership further. It's like putting a system (capitalism) inside a system (georgism), inside of Marxism, and then a transition would occur.

However, it's generally irrelevant to anarchists, as anarchists define capitalist property itself as being tyrannical and unjust, and want to eliminate all hierarchical institutions. Anarchists see protecting the capitalist slave owners as unjust as protecting the chatel slavery owners, although I guess some Georgists could probably see that as well, but think market transactions under capitalism are about as good as it gets.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Don't answer. It's a trap. He knows the answers already, he just wants to play "gotcha" games. It's a frequent trolling tactic.

Care to provide a tangible response instead of touting me as a troll whenever this topic comes along? I would put the issue to rest if someone - anyone - could properly defend the very foundation of capitalism.

Besides, you're wrong. I had no intention of pushing my beliefs. Up until you replied with more straw men, I wasn't even planning to respond unless a question was directed back at me.

[pusher robot]

Besides, you're wrong. I had no intention of pushing my beliefs. Up until you replied with more straw men, I wasn't even planning to respond unless a question was directed back at me.


I don't believe you. Your past behavior has long since exhausted any supply of good-will I had toward you. I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The proviso is not hard to understand, you have obviously read about what it is and what it says. It does not seriously challenge the underpinnings of "capitalism"* in any way because it does not challenge the concept of "capital," - (note that even pure Georgism taxes the value only of unimproved land value, i.e., it explicitly excludes capital improvements from taxation) - nor does it deny in any way the liberal principles of economics. It's essentially standard capitalism with an underlying axiom that all humans have some ownership interest in the Earth - but like any other ownership interest in capitalism, it can be bought, sold and traded away through markets which automatically work to maximize economic efficiency even given any arbitrary constraints.

* I must emphatically deny that "capitalism" under any modern usage actually means "the complete writings of Locke." Capitalists are under no affirmative obligation to defend everything that Locke ever said.

[pusher robot]

The fact is, capitalists have been unable to come up with a coherent explanation for absolutist property rights that will even convince most Americans (or, people from the European countries), let alone most Socialists.

"Absolutist property rights" are not an inherent part of capitalist ideology, only for radical anarcho-capitalists. It would be helpful not to confuse the two.

[Robert]

Pusher dude, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know where the "ignore" button is on this board?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Pusher dude, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know where the "ignore" button is on this board?
Some of the OIers like to engage in debate instead of ignoring everyone though.

[Robert]

Well, sure. Go ahead. "Ignoring" a troll just prevents you from being bothered with him; it doesn't affect others' ability to try and have a reasonable exchange with him.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't believe you.Well, some people will forever remain ignorant, I suppose.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Too late. I've already been fed. :laugh:

http://www.cartooncritters.com/dressupimages/troll.gif

[pusher robot]

Pusher dude, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know where the "ignore" button is on this board?

No actually - I didn't know there was one.

[Demogorgon]

No actually - I didn't know there was one.

If you go into someone's profile, there will be an option to ignore them.

As for the original question, an ideological justification for capitalism is kind of the wrong thing to look for. I have never seen it coherently defended without reference to empirical economic facts (and even there I disagree), it simply is.

Besides Capitalists don't really base themselves on Locke anyway. I guess Agorists and the like do, but otherwise they don't. Locke is ridiculously archaic these days.

[Robert]

If you go into someone's profile, there will be an option to ignore them.

No. It's in your own control panel.

[Baconator]

"Absolutist property rights" are not an inherent part of capitalist ideology, only for radical anarcho-capitalists. It would be helpful not to confuse the two.

Right you are. Pusher isn't presenting the case for absolute property rights. Thats what I do. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Right you are. Pusher isn't presenting the case for absolute property rights. Thats what I do. :D

:lol::lol::lol: Good to see you back.

[IcarusAngel]

George himself question capital, when he said the following: "With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege."

With capital, there is the assumption that if you "buy" the land, it's yours, and you can exploit whoever asks to use it. This is analogous to government, really, in political science or by historical definitions.

Even state socialists allowed some flow of "capital," but the philosophy of capitalism requires the above.

And yes, most capitalists view any attempts to end their slavery as an abridgment of "property rights," which is why they call even American Democrats, moderate capitalists, "socialists."