I don’t understand what you mean by double and triple posts. I haven’t posted any message twice.
On your last point, I don’t agree that all leftists like fixed economies. I don’t even agree that leftist and rightism are about economics.
I’m not saying “no labels”. I’m saying “helpful labels only, please”. “The left” is such an inchoate jumble of positions that it only serves to distract, and not enlighten.
Do you mean that in the thought experiment the renters will be legally prohibited from purchasing parts of the land? Or are you assuming that the market doesn’t work just because land ownership happens to be unequal? Capitalism is the most advantageous economic order, no matter what has occurred in the past. Interventionism only hampers standards of living, no matter what has occurred in the past. If you can undo the confiscation by taking away the clear effective property rights of the two confiscators, then do so. Otherwise, leave them with clear effective property rights. It helps no one to cripple the market by establishing the regime of effectively collectivized property rights that measures like rent control entail.
Left-libertarians aren’t anti-free market. A lot of people here have the wrong idea. Left-libertarians are market anarchists (and perhaps minarchists) who oppose capitalism (in the sense of a highly stratified economy based on wage labor, capital-ism, capital as ideology/religion) and have egalitarian/leftist social views. Some are mutualists, some are Rothbardians, some are geolibertarians… it’s very diverse.
So basically they have a different, strawman definition of capitalism and then oppose it.
how is being anti-wage labor pro-market?
Vaguely,
As someone who is familiar with AE, surely you know that capitalism has a precise meaning at a place like this. You’re using Marxist definitions at a Misesian website.
Why on earth should they be required to purchase what was just stolen from them? You’re claiming that it is not beneficial, if I have had my land stolen out from under me, to put a limit on the rent that can be required of me. You can throw buzzwords at the situation all day, but clearly the optimal rent here is 0, and the lower it is, the better. Controls on the rent aren’t ideal, but the situation was that while a middle of the road position was possible, reversing the theft was not. What you’re saying here amounts to a demand that, after a thief has stolen my wallet, the court must recognize his property, not hinder the capitalist system by making him give it back.
"Why on earth should they be required to purchase what was just stolen from them? "
Because, outside of restitution, it is the best way to improve their standard of living.
“You’re claiming that it is not beneficial, if I have had my land stolen out from under me, to put a limit on the rent that can be required of me.”
In the long run it would not be beneficial, because the social process of production would be stymied thereby.
“Controls on the rent aren’t ideal, but the situation was that while a middle of the road position was possible, reversing the theft was not.”
Middle of the road economic policies do nothing but hamper the market, and harm the interests of the very people they are meant to help.
“You can throw buzzwords at the situation all day”
They’re not buzzwords. They’re economic terms. Instead of moralizing, you might want to apply economic terms and economic science to problems concerning human welfare.
“the optimal rent here is 0, and the lower it is, the better.”
The optimal rent is whatever rent consumers establish via the market process of imputation.
“What you’re saying here amounts to a demand that, after a thief has stolen my wallet, the court must recognize his property, not hinder the capitalist system by making him give it back.”
No, making him give it back would be ideal, in terms of consumer (human) benefit. Letting him keep the wallet would be second best. Establishing a regime of collective ownership over the wallet would be by far the worst.
Because, outside of restitution, it is the best way to improve their standard of living.
It will not improve their standard of living, it will hurt their standard of living. Their standard of living would be improved had they not been robbed in the first place. Since the thief is the only available seller of land, what do you imagine the price will be?
In the long run it would not be beneficial, because the social process of production would be stymied thereby.
How would the social process of production be hindered by not allowing the collection of rent on stolen property? You’re acting as if these prices conveyed some information, but they don’t. They would convey information had they been paid by people willing to rent. Here they just convey how much theft took place. They don’t reflect relative scarcity, at least not accurately, because the participants in the transaction have been coerced into it, rather than entering into it voluntarily.
Middle of the road economic policies do nothing but hamper the market, and harm the interests of the very people they are meant to help.
Yes, it’s too bad that the statist policies were implemented in the first place, I agree. They shouldn’t have been. We don’t improve the situation by simply giving in to them, though.
They’re not buzzwords. They’re economic terms. Instead of moralizing, you might want to apply economic terms and economic science to problems concerning human welfare.
Property is a moral concept. Rights are moral concepts. It’s not useful to boost production if all the excess production goes to thieves and the people doing the producing do not share in the increase. What we care about is that production must reward good economic activity. That’s how prices work. You provide a good or service on the market and are paid for it, and this amounts to saying that others do things for you because you’ve done things for others. That’s a well-functioning market. Theft is not a market activity, and rewarding theft does not make the society more productive.
The optimal rent is whatever rent consumers establish via the market process of imputation.
This would certainly be true on the market. But the question here was the optimal rent to pay on land that was originally mine. You’ve already told me that, if feasible, the land should be returned to the people it was stolen from. Since the people it was stolen from are still occupying it, the only impact that would have would be that they would stop paying rent. Hence, that would be exactly the same as the rent simply falling to 0.
In fact, if you wish, look at it this way: since the theft didn’t change occupancy, just imposed rents, the same effect could have been achieved in the first place by, instead of stealing the land, simply passing a law requiring everyone to make payments to the 2 favored guys, with the penalty that if they didn’t pay, they’d lose their land. Surely you’d agree that the optimal tribute would be 0. You wouldn’t be telling me that by lowering or eliminating the tribute I’m messing with market mechanisms, and you wouldn’t be thinking that the amount of the tribute should be controlled by the market. More to the point, you’d agree that the only real distortions here have to do with the 2 guys having unearned wealth. They get to take that tribute money into the marketplace and buy things with it without producing anything, and direct production into the channels they’re interested in (voting with their dollars) rather than the channels desired by market participants who actually produce anything. They aren’t at all different from Senators getting rich off of tax dollars, except that these guys, since they’re only friends with politicians, and not politicians themselves, get to call themselves “businessmen” although they actually have no businesses.
No, making him give it back would be ideal, in terms of consumer (human) benefit. Letting him keep the wallet would be second best. Establishing a regime of collective ownership over the wallet would be by far the worst.
What is good about letting him keep it? That’s creating a system where people do not expect property to be secure, and can profit by theft.
“Their standard of living would be improved had they not been robbed in the first place.”
Of course. But that’s not one of the possibilities you’ve permitted in your thought experiment, so why bring it up?
“How would the social process of production be hindered by not allowing the collection of rent on stolen property?”
I already explained it to you. If you don’t re-expropriate the land, but merely constrain its uses, and effectively collectivize it, then you only impel the primary controller to allocate it to uses that are less value-productive for consumers.
“You’re acting as if these prices conveyed some information, but they don’t. They would convey information had they been paid by people willing to rent. Here they just convey how much theft took place. They don’t reflect relative scarcity, at least not accurately, because the participants in the transaction have been coerced into it, rather than entering into it voluntarily.”
They’ve been coerced into losing their property. Assuming irrevocable past expropriation, the preference scales individuals henceforth demonstrate matter. Prices convey information about consumer preferences given any state of affairs that have been made irrevocable by assumption. Ongoing confiscation leads to capital consumption. Even the one-time confiscation we have under consideration causes capital consumption. But a prior “original sin” doesn’t somehow make the future perpetually market-free. However price controls always break the market.
“Yes, it’s too bad that the statist policies were implemented in the first place, I agree. They shouldn’t have been. We don’t improve the situation by simply giving in to them, though.”
The fact of the matter is, according to your assumption of no restitution, you can’t make the situation as propitious for the victims as they would have been had the confiscation not occurred. But you certainly won’t improve the situation by introducing price controls into the market. Price controls aren’t simply transfers of wealth. They break the market. And breaking the market doesn’t do anybody any good.
“You’ve already told me that, if feasible, the land should be returned to the people it was stolen from. Since the people it was stolen from are still occupying it, the only impact that would have would be that they would stop paying rent. Hence, that would be exactly the same as the rent simply falling to 0.”
No, the key impact is that the people it was stolen from would have complete ownership of the land’s full capital value again: that they can do what they will with it (whether that means investing or selling it, either fully or in part). Therefore, the land could be optimally allocated again. By only looking at how much rent the occupants pay, you are looking at the matter completely superficially, and ignoring the market process. This is what liberty student is talking about regarding the blithe, superficial approach to economics taken by so many people who call themselves left-libertarian. And it is why it must be so frustrating for people like Peter Klein to debate philosophers who don’t really study econ enough to be aware of 95% of the implications of their proposals.
“In fact, if you wish, look at it this way: since the theft didn’t change occupancy, just imposed rents, the same effect could have been achieved in the first place by, instead of stealing the land, simply passing a law requiring everyone to make payments to the 2 favored guys, with the penalty that if they didn’t pay, they’d lose their land. Surely you’d agree that the optimal tribute would be 0. You wouldn’t be telling me that by lowering or eliminating the tribute I’m messing with market mechanisms, and you wouldn’t be thinking that the amount of the tribute should be controlled by the market.”
That would not have the same effect, because in your original thought experiment, the confiscators gained complete control over the capital value of the land. In this second thought experiment, they don’t. Reducing the tribute to zero in this case does nothing to break the market, since the occupants have full ownership of the land, and therefore can allocate the land rationally with reference to consumer demand.
“What is good about letting him keep it? That’s creating a system where people do not expect property to be secure, and can profit by theft.”
A one-time hit to the perceived inviolability of private property is better than a permanent wrench in the gears of the market process.
I’m not saying “no labels”. I’m saying “helpful labels only, please”. “The left” is such an inchoate jumble of positions that it only serves to distract, and not enlighten.
I have been throwing this George Orwell article around lately (1st recommended by someone else on another thread), as I have been having the same frustrations, something that may go somewhat in tandem with your recent article:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
“Being profound and seeming profound – Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.”
Good ol’ Fritz - The Gay Science
That is a splendid quote.
Derrida, anyone?
I already explained it to you. If you don’t re-expropriate the land, but merely constrain its uses, and effectively collectivize it, then you only impel the primary controller to allocate it to uses that are less value-productive for consumers
The land is currently being used for the same purpose it was prior to the theft. If we institute the policy suggested, it will still be used for that same purpose, except that more of the production will go to the person who holds the legitimate title, rather than the thief. Now, what you seem to be concerned about is the ability of the thief to say “no, actually, we’re going to build a factory there, not farm it.” That is, to allocate the land to a different, more productive use. You’re worried that restictions on him prevent that from happening, right? Have you ever heard the phrase “it was my desert, and now it’s your city?” That is to say, since he effectively controls all the land in the same way, he can go ahead and build the more productive factories, and yet in the end, everyone but the new landowners ends up poorer. On your assumptions that economic productivity is the end-all be-all, sure, that’s better since aggregate production is up. What you have amounts to a feudal system, though.
They’ve been coerced into losing their property. Assuming irrevocable past expropriation, the preference scales individualshenceforth demonstrate matter. Prices convey information about consumer preferences given any state of affairs that have been made irrevocable by assumption. Ongoing confiscation leads to capital consumption. Even the one-time confiscation we have under consideration causes capital consumption. But a prior “original sin” doesn’t somehow make the future perpetually market-free. However price controls always break the market.
So, let’s follow through what will happen here. Maybe the factory really is a more productive use of the land than farming. So the owners convert most of the land to factories, making the only jobs available to the former freeholders factory jobs. Their marginal productivity has gone up, so they should be paid more than before, right? As we know, wages equal marginal productivity…on the market. Here, all the factories (however many there are) are owned by the same person, and so are the remaining farms. What drives wages up to marginal productivity is the idea that if you underpay your workers, someone else will see the bargain and offer them more. That can’t happen here. Ok, so they’ll open a new factory and attract away all the workers? No, they won’t, not without the land to build it on - and if they try to rent the land to do so, they’ll find that the owners, not wanting competition, will simply raise the rent so that the factory they propose to build would not be worth building. Or, even better, he just won’t discuss renting out the land, and certainly won’t discuss selling it. Why would he behave this way? Because that’s how monopolists behave when the barriers to entry are created by government. Doesn’t he see that more production is available if he rents out the land, assuming they can be more productive than he can? Sure - but he faces the same set of incentives as the former farmers. There will be more production, but his slice of it will be smaller. You’ve also ignored, from the former freeholders perspective, psychic income. Maybe even if their wages are higher as factory workers than their profit was as farmers, they prefer farming enough that this fails to compensate them.
No, the key impact is that the people it was stolen from would have complete ownership of the land’s full capital value again: that they can do what they will with it (whether that means investing or selling it, either fully or in part). Therefore, the land could be optimally allocated again. By only looking at how much rent the occupants pay, you are looking at the matter completely superficially, and ignoring the market process. This is what liberty student is talking about regarding the blithe, superficial approach to economics taken by so many people who call themselves left-libertarian. And it is why it must be so frustrating for people like Peter Klein to debate philosophers who don’t really study econ enough to be aware of 95% of the implications of their proposals.
Since we’re talking about frustrations, I’ll tell you some frustrations I’ve encountered. When I identify as Austrian, most people don’t know what I’m talking about, but of those who do, the most frequent complaint I hear about Austrians is the failure to distinguish disagreement from ignorance.
A one-time hit to the perceived inviolability of private property is better than a permanent wrench in the gears of the market process.
Moral hazard? By the way, you’ve discounted a whole bunch of other options. What if he repays some of the money? Is that also worse than the thief keeping it?
Well, it would be quite possible (if a tad painful) to equalize all penis sizes to 2". What would be the most libertarian way of achieving such a lofty leftist goal?
The level of confusion in some people in this thread is mind-boggling.
Z.
“That is to say, since he effectively controls all the land in the same way, he can go ahead and build the more productive factories, and yet in the end, everyone but the new landowners ends up poorer.”
The new landowners cannot benefit from producing for the market except via providing benefits to others.
“On your assumptions that economic productivity is the end-all be-all, sure, that’s better since aggregate production is up. What you have amounts to a feudal system, though”
You cannot have a feudal system without a feudal legal order. Mises, Socialism: “As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely.”
“So, let’s follow through what will happen here.” (…)
So, now we’re dealing with an autarkic economy here? The workers and goods can’t go anywhere else? If that’s the case, think about what you’re postulating here: a single isolated vast land-and-capital monopoly/cartel. As Rothbard wrote, such a firm would suffer from the calculation problem just as severely as any socialist state. Therefore, assuming its vast inefficiency (and thus the vastly sub-optimal standard of living for even the landowners) and given a firm private property rights regime, it would be entirely in the landowners’ best interest to divest. Furthermore, this latest extension of your thought experiment rests on the notion of monopoly-of-demand prices, which Mises proved is an empty concept. Also an expropriation is not a barrier to entry; the latter term refers to markets, not specific goods.
“Maybe even if their wages are higher as factory workers than their profit was as farmers, they prefer farming enough that this fails to compensate them.”
This is an argument for restoring their property, not for instituting rent control.
“Moral hazard?”
Yes, a one-time fostering of moral hazard is preferable to a permanent wrench in the gears of the market process.
“By the way, you’ve discounted a whole bunch of other options. What if he repays some of the money? Is that also worse than the thief keeping it?”
I did not discount that option. I said the best option was restitution. The above would constitute a partial restitution.
Exactly. As I’ve said till I’m blue in the face the idea of Capitalist= ‘pro market’ vs socialist= ’ anti market’(as if that has any meaning at all) Is false. You can be socialist and ‘pro market’ or to be more precise socialist and pro-free market and that’s what most left-libertarians(myself included are)
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
how is being anti-wage labor pro-market?
[/quote]
How is being anti-wage labour ‘anti -market’ ? You show here what I’ve said before.In the mind of an An-cap being pro market/pro free market= wage labour and being anti wage labour = ‘anti market’ / anti-free market.It’s false.An-cap has a lot of assumptions and claimed logical implications.It is much more than the NAP as LS claims.