FOTH, private property is the means through which postponement of consumption (savings) can occur. Without private property, every economic agent would be incentivised to consume everything in front of him as fast as possible lest someone else does it before him. You’re welcome to build a society without private property and prove its sustainability – not on my property, though. In this light, private property is also the ultimate embodiment of “live and let live” and the Golden Rule. Under private property, you can do/try what you think would work better without dragging everyone else – kicking and screaming – down with you.
FOTH, private property is the means through which postponement of consumption (savings) can occur. Without private property, every economic agent would be incentivised to consume everything in front of him as fast as possible lest someone else does it before him.
Kind of like a buffet, where every customer tries to eat all of the food as fast as they can lest others eat it first? Or like how water is free in my city, causing everyone to consume all of the water as fast as possible by say, leaving the shower on 24/7? Or maybe like the library where everyone always has the maximum number of books checked out? Obviously people consume things simply because they are in front of them.
The dichotomy between consumption and production is really absurd anyway. If UPS spends their money on new trucks, they’re “saving” their money, “deferring” consumption, expressing their preference for “future goods.” While if I spend my money on a car in order to get to my job at UPS, I’m “consuming” my money and expressing a preference for “present goods.”
In this light, private property is also the ultimate embodiment of “live and let live” and the Golden Rule. Under private property, you can do/try what you think would work better without dragging everyone else – kicking and screaming – down with you.
It has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. Because my employer owns their property does not mean that they treat me the way I want to be treated. Private property is monarchy and totalitarianism–even people like Hoppe have admitted this. The decisions of private property owners directly affects other people. An employer is perfectly able to drag other people down with them. Laying people off, evicting them from their homes, is not “live and let live.” Oh, but it is if it respects their private property? Well, that’s just begging the question.
spending your money on transportation to work is a capital expenditure. you are the one who insists that laborers cannot be capitalists, obviously an absurd proposition.
because you choose to voluntarily associate with them, they must be treating you in a way that is acceptable to you. This is a matter of definition. If you did not accept it they would not be your employer.
spending your money on transportation to work is a capital expenditure. you are the one who insists that laborers cannot be capitalists, obviously an absurd proposition.
In that case, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on capital expeditures. They save more than the rich and yet somehow have less. Therefore, wealth inequality can’t be justified or explained based on time preference.
because you choose to voluntarily associate with them, they must be treating you in a way that is acceptable to you. This is a matter of definition. If you did not accept it they would not be your employer.
I chose to voluntarily associate with the city government by moving here. I guess that means that the taxes and laws they impose on me are acceptable to me by definition?
define these “poor.” also, please explain your methodology in aggregating their expenditure profiles.
well that depends on the specific acts involved in your acceptance a payment of taxes and the title to land that you hold. Was this meant to contradict or obfuscate my point about your voluntary association with your employer?
Typical communist rant – an insult to strawmen. Yes, private property (and voluntary exchanges of same, i.e. markets) arise in a world with scarcity. If roasted chickens fell from the sky, buffets appeared at the snap of your finger, and drinkable water came out of faucets on its own perhaps private property would not be a fundamentally important determinant of society’s viability. In the meantime…
Money is never “consumed”. It is merely the medium of exchange. The money you spent on your car is a mere token for the goods or services you’ve voluntarily exchanged for it in the past – making the world a better place for all parties involved in those exchanges. The dichotomy is not between consumption vs. production but between present and postponed consumption. So your car represents both present consumption (when you take your girl for a ride in the woods) and postponed consumption (when you use it as saved capital, investment, to drive it to work so you can get paid and be able to afford a car and a house five years down the road).
If you don’t like how you’re treated on someone else’s property, leave. If others don’t like how you treat them on your property, they can leave, as well. If you think you know best how everyone should be treated, start entering into mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges, acquire capital, postpone its consumption, accumulate your own wealth, acquire property, and implement on it whatever proper society you envision. All other ways of shepherding independent economic agents into strictly following your deluded vision (no matter how benevolent it may be in your view) have been tried and failed miserably – ask Stalin and Mao.
define these “poor.” also, please explain your methodology in aggregating their expenditure profiles.
Someone who lives at subsistence levels necessarily spends a greater proportion of their money on “capital expenditures” (future goods) than someone who spends money on luxury items.
well that depends on the specific acts involved in your acceptance a payment of taxes and the title to land that you hold. Was this meant to contradict or obfuscate my point about your voluntary association with your employer?
I’m showing that you are inconsistent. You are saying that private property is justified because it is voluntary but what is voluntary is determined by it being private property. It’s a circular argument. If you want to pursue this point, define what you mean by voluntary.
Typical communist rant – an insult to strawmen. Yes, private property (and voluntary exchanges of same, i.e. markets) arise in a world with scarcity. If roasted chickens fell from the sky, buffets appeared at the snap of your finger, and drinkable water came out of faucets on its own perhaps private property would not be a fundamentally important determinant of society’s viability. In the meantime…
Well then, why don’t you present some evidence to convince me? Oh wait, let me guess, you know this a priori.
Money is never “consumed”. It is merely the medium of exchange. The money you spent on your car is a mere token for the goods or services you’ve voluntarily exchanged for it in the past – making the world a better place for all parties involved in those exchanges. The dichotomy is not between consumption vs. production but between present and postponed consumption. So your car represents both present consumption (when you take your girl for a ride in the woods) and postponed consumption (when you use it as saved capital, investment, to drive it to work so you can get paid and be able to afford a car and a house five years down the road).
So what is consumption, when I gain enjoyment out of something? (The Austrian definitions for words are always different, so I have to ask.)
If you don’t like how you’re treated on someone else’s property, leave. If others don’t like how you treat them on your property, they can leave, as well. If you think you know best how everyone should be treated, start entering into mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges, acquire capital, postpone its consumption, accumulate your own wealth, acquire property, and implement on it whatever proper society you envision. All other ways of shepherding independent economic agents into strictly following your deluded vision (no matter how benevolent it may be in your view) have been tried and failed miserably – ask Stalin and Mao.
Well, I can just as easily say if you don’t like how your treated on your property, you can leave.
When did I ever say anything about shepherding economic agents? What does that even mean?
"However, what really happens is the government steps in and gives the glazer the money to fix his window (new money in the economy) and once again the glazer can afford to buy the new suite. This new money triggers the money multiplier. "
As someone stated earlier, where does the governement get this “new” money? It first had to take it from some other individual X in the economy, and now X is that much poorer. Now X can’t purchase what he desires. This entire scenario is just one big giant redistribution scheme and there is no overall net benefit, no overall money multiplier.
Drop “Das Kapital” and read ''Human Action". You are ready.
Not sure of the “correct” definition, but I’ll give you mine which is close to yours: Satisfaction of wants.
Absolutely. And I can just as easily say nothing and just slaughter you, regardless of whose property you’re on. I’m sure humanity has tried all of these modalities of social interaction. Social evolution (natural selection) seems to have somehow converged on the concepts of “private property” and “dont just kill whomever bugs you” across continents separated with oceans. Moreover, judging from the few centuries evidence we have, there is a clear correlation between a society’s (1) respect for private property (and abundant voluntary exchanges of same) and (2) everyone’s ability to satisfy their needs and wants (i.e. wealth). The counter-factuals are also abundant (e.g. Stalin, Mao, North Korea).
How do you plan to implement whatever vision you have for society?
please explain how this is “necessarily” true.
no, you are trying to suggest such but you fail. Private property isnt justified because its “voluntary” private property is a native axiom to the human condition. Voluntary exchange is justified because everyone involved consents to it. You consented to the arrangement with your employer. I did not consent to a given law if that law was thrust upon me without my consent.
voluntary- proceeding from the will, or from one’s own choice or consent.
Not sure of the “correct” definition, but I’ll give you mine which is close to yours: Satisfaction of wants.
So your problem with an anti-propertarian position is that too many wants would be satisfied? There is no necessary connection between the ability to satisfy wants in the present and the ability to satisfy wants in the future. If I abstain from satisfying my want of food for a week, it doesn’t increase my ability to satisfy my wants during the following week. On the contrary, satisfying my want of food presently increases my ability to satisfy my wants next week. In addition, the satisfaction of wants does not imply the destruction of the object providing satisfaction. When you said that “[w]ithout private property, every economic agent would be incentivised to consume everything in front of him as fast as possible,” you’re only saying that everyone will gain satisfaction from the things in front them. That doesn’t sound so bad to me.
Moreover, judging from the few centuries evidence we have, there is a clear correlation between a society’s (1) respect for private property (and abundant voluntary exchanges of same) and (2) everyone’s ability to satisfy their needs and wants (i.e. wealth). The counter-factuals are also abundant (e.g. Stalin, Mao, North Korea).
What constitutes private property is in no way universal between societies. The white colonizers of North America stole the land from the natives and then prevented people from settling it until they paid the government a fee. And yet I’m guessing you consider the United States to be a society where property rights are respected.
How do you plan to implement whatever vision you have for society?
By challenging authority and resisting dogma.
please explain how this is “necessarily” true.
They’re spending everything on subsistence, that means if they spent something on luxury, they would die and not have a future. Whereas someone’s luxury expenses do not increase their ability to produce in the future.
no, you are trying to suggest such but you fail. Private property isnt justified because its “voluntary” private property is a native axiom to the human condition.
What is a “native” axiom?
Voluntary exchange is justified because everyone involved consents to it. You consented to the arrangement with your employer. I did not consent to a given law if that law was thrust upon me without my consent.
voluntary- proceeding from the will, or from one’s own choice or consent.
And this was your original quote: because you choose to voluntarily associate with them, they must be treating you in a way that is acceptable to you. This is a matter of definition. If you did not accept it they would not be your employer.
I can simply say that I do not consent to a given policy of my employer. Suppose my employer creates a new policy and I refuse to follow it. If they fire me, that would be equivalent to the government throwing me in jail for violating one of their new laws. Indeed, whatever specific reason my employer has for firing me isn’t something that would be found in my contract with them.
There is no necessary connection between the ability to satisfy wants in the present and the ability to satisfy wants in the future. If I abstain from satisfying my want of food for a week, it doesn’t increase my ability to satisfy my wants during the following week.
If you need a car and don’t have enough money for a down payment right now, but you will next week if you avoid eating out this week, that sounds like sacrificing one level of satisfaction one week for a greater level of satisfaction next week.
On the contrary, satisfying my want of food presently increases my ability to satisfy my wants next week.
Not necessarily. There are several factors behind satisfying your want of food that haven’t been addressed (how much you eat, how often you eat, what you eat, how much it costs, etc.).
When you said that “[w]ithout private property, every economic agent would be incentivised to consume everything in front of him as fast as possible,” you’re only saying that everyone will gain satisfaction from the things in front them. That doesn’t sound so bad to me.
Consider this: The storm of the century suddenly hits your town and because of “price gouging” laws (aka a constraint on private property) Wal-Mart can’t raise the price of emergency goods to attract resources and the Holiday Inn can’t raise the price of its rooms to encourage sharing. So Sir Stanley Westerville, the richest man in town, sends his personal assistant to Wal-Mart to buy emergency goods and he gets there before anyone else. Upon seeing how cheap the goods are, he decides to buy everything they have for himself and his friends on the rich side of town, all before anyone else gets a chance to buy them. In the meantime Sir Westerville calls the Holiday Inn, and upon finding out the news about the absurdly low prices for lodging, and reserves a room for himself, each one of his friends and each one of their kids (rich people need their space, you know), all before anyone else can get a chance to reserve a room.
Everyone gaining satisfaction from the things in front of them worked out so well!
…someone’s luxury expenses do not increase their ability to produce in the future.
Maybe, maybe not. They might decide they like purchasing those luxury items and decide to work more and work harder to comfortably afford them. But even if those luxury expenses didn’t increase the wealthier person’s productivity, they increased the productivity of the people they’re buying them from, who in turn have more money to put towards goods/services that will satisfy them (and increase the productivity of the next person down the line).
Suppose my employer creates a new policy and I refuse to follow it. If they fire me, that would be equivalent to the government throwing me in jail for violating one of their new laws.
As soon as you produce your contract with the government that says you agree to be thrown in jail for violating one of their new laws. I think mine got lost in the mail.
Indeed, whatever specific reason my employer has for firing me isn’t something that would be found in my contract with them.
Have you ever had to sit through the employee handbook spiel at your place of work? That’s where one explicit contract to abide by the rules they set forth is, and you’ll often sign far more pieces of paperwork to that end than that. I’m sure there are some employers that don’t do explicit paperwork, but they are becoming few and far between.
If you need a car and don’t have enough money for a down payment right now, but you will next week if you avoid eating out this week, that sounds like sacrificing one level of satisfaction one week for a greater level of satisfaction next week.
I said there was no necessary connection between satisfying wants now and later. That doesn’t mean that certain cases don’t require present abstinence for future satisfaction. In your example, its not that abstaining from satisfaction allows one to buy the car but rather the accumulation of money. And accumulating money does not necessarily imply abstinence from satisfaction. I might find the accumulation of money to be a form of satisfaction in itself.
Not necessarily. There are several factors behind satisfying your want of food that haven’t been addressed (how much you eat, how often you eat, what you eat, how much it costs, etc.).
Sure. But in general food is something that both satisfy a present want and allows me to live to produce and consume in the future.
Consider this: The storm of the century suddenly hits your town and because of “price gouging” laws (aka a constraint on private property) Wal-Mart can’t raise the price of emergency goods to attract resources and the Holiday Inn can’t raise the price of its rooms to encourage sharing. So Sir Stanley Westerville, the richest man in town, sends his personal assistant to Wal-Mart to buy emergency goods and he gets there before anyone else. Upon seeing how cheap the goods are, he decides to buy everything they have for himself and his friends on the rich side of town, all before anyone else gets a chance to buy them. In the meantime Sir Westerville calls the Holiday Inn, and upon finding out the news about the absurdly low prices for lodging, and reserves a room for himself, each one of his friends and each one of their kids (rich people need their space, you know), all before anyone else can get a chance to reserve a room.
Everyone gaining satisfaction from the things in front of them worked out so well!
So the point is that the expenditures of rich people deprive others of things they really need? And what, this somehow isn’t true under the reign of private property? It’s far too common for countries to export food while their own populations are dying of starvation.
As soon as you produce your contract with the government that says you agree to be thrown in jail for violating one of their new laws. I think mine got lost in the mail.
So all the government has to do is draw up such an agreement and you’ll no longer have any objections?
Have you ever had to sit through the employee handbook spiel at your place of work? That’s where one explicit contract to abide by the rules they set forth is, and you’ll often sign far more pieces of paperwork to that end than that. I’m sure there are some employers that don’t do explicit paperwork, but they are becoming few and far between.
I had my fingers crossed, I tell ya! I only agreed to sign my name on a piece of paper. I never agreed that they had the right to fire me.
I said there was no necessary connection between satisfying wants now and later.
And there is no necessary meaning to your statement.
In your example, its not that abstaining from satisfaction allows one to buy the car but rather the accumulation of money.
Yes, and, as I set forth in my example, in order to accumulate that money they had to set aside other possible immediate uses for that money which would provide satisfaction. Hence a lower state of satisfaction was set aside this week for a greater state of satisfaction next week.
And accumulating money does not necessarily imply abstinence from satisfaction. I might find the accumulation of money to be a form of satisfaction in itself.
A form of satisfaction compared to what?
Sure. But in general food is something that both satisfy a present want and allows me to live to produce and consume in the future.
And that’s beside the point, since you stated that satisfying your want of food now increases your ability to satify your future wants. There are many ways in which you can satisfy your want of food now and decrease your ability to satisfy your future wants (and many people do just that).
So the point is that the expenditures of rich people deprive others of things they really need?
No, the point is that, within the context of the suspension of private property, you presupposed “everyone will gain satisfaction from the things in front them” to mean that everyone one would be able to equally (or even fairly to be generous) gain satisfaction.
And what, this somehow isn’t true under the reign of private property?
It’s far less true under the “reign” of private property than under the presumption of public property.
It’s far too common for countries to export food while their own populations are dying of starvation.
And behind almost every seemingly bizarre economic activity you’ll to find a government rule or regulation that created it.
So all the government has to do is draw up such an agreement and you’ll no longer have any objections?
Yep. Sounds easy enough, doesn’t it? Of course, they still have to get people to voluntarily agree to it.
I only agreed to sign my name on a piece of paper. I never agreed that they had the right to fire me.
You could agree that a man that transplants his penis from his groin to his forehead is a unicorn, that doesn’t make it true. The fact is that your signature represents your agreement with whatever conditions are set forth in the documents, and that is explicitly stated on the documents. And if within those documents it is stated that failure to comply with rules may result in termination then yes, you did agree they had the right to fire you.
And there is no necessary meaning to your statement.
Okay…
Yes, and, as I set forth in my example, in order to accumulate that money they had to set aside other possible immediate uses for that money which would provide satisfaction. Hence a lower state of satisfaction was set aside this week for a greater state of satisfaction next week.
I agree. But you can’t use that example to make the categorical claim that all immediate satisfaction diminishes later satisfaction. There are two completely different concepts that people imply when they use the word consumption. One is the satisfaction of wants and the other is the destruction of the item in question. These two things, however, are not universally tied together. If we are not necessarily talking about the destruction of objects, then it is hard to see how present consumption will necessarily inhibit future consumption. In addition, the destruction of an object doesn’t mean that I will be less able to satisfy future wants. It just implies that I won’t be able to use that object again.
A form of satisfaction compared to what?
Hmm, a form of abstinence of satisfaction?
And that’s beside the point, since you stated that satisfying your want of food now increases your ability to satify your future wants. There are many ways in which you can satisfy your want of food now and decrease your ability to satisfy your future wants (and many people do just that).
Well, maybe its beside your point, but its not beside my point. My point is that food’s ability to satisfy your appetite has nothing to do with its ability to increase or decrease your ability to satisfy future wants. It has that ability because of the physical effect it has on your body. Whether that effect increases or decreases your ability to satisfy your future wants has nothing to do with whether the good is considered a consumption good by Z’s definition. According to this definition, consumption goods and production goods are not mutually exclusive categories.
No, the point is that, within the context of the suspension of private property, you presupposed “everyone will gain satisfaction from the things in front them” to mean that everyone one would be able to equally (or even fairly to be generous) gain satisfaction.
Well first of all, in your scenario, people will gain satisfaction from the things in front of them regardless of these property rights. So I don’t understand the point about the relationship between property and the level of satisfaction gained. Second, I don’t see how government imposition of price controls amounts to a lack of property. The idea that a given person or institution (such as the state) has a legal monopoly over how a given entity is used is precisely what I mean by property.
And behind almost every seemingly bizarre economic activity you’ll to find a government rule or regulation that created it.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree.