Is it a land, labour, capital, consumption, or some combination of them? I think that it’s all except for labour, what are your opinions?
I think it’s land. No wait. I think the question doesn’t make much sense.
Its classification depends on its use (i.e. the ends it is servicing), as with any good.
Ok, then what is the full range of possible classifcations it could fall into.
Consumption, for me.
[6]
Actually, it’s use only determines whether it falls into the category of a consumer good or a higher order good. Use, does not determine whether a factor of production is land or capital. Classification in these cases depends on the particular properties of the good in question.
Let me clarify. The human body is a Mengerian economic good. Now given the Austrian classification of goods, land, labour, capital, consumer, which does the human body fall into. I began thinking about it after reading chapters 7.4 and 7.6 of MESPM. In 7.4 Rothbard explains that land used for farming is both capital and land because some of it is depleted and must be replaced and some of it is permanent. So he gives a dual classification of a good. In 7.6 he explains which goods qualify as a capital good and which goods qualify as land.
So, I think that the human body is capable of providing leisure (play) and labour (work) services. So it can be used as a consumer good and as a factor of production. Work consumes the bodies energy and needs to be replaced. Also, we are injured sometimes and need health care, so to an extent the human body is a capital good. Also, there are limits to what health care can do for us. Our health is depleted over time and cannot be replaced. So it is a depleteable natural resource as well.
Anyway, what do you think?
Freiheit, your time preference is far too high (about “Jimi Hendrix”).
Its a durable consumer good.
I don’t consider it to be property of any sort. But if we’re going to use propertarian metaphors for the body, it’s can be construed as a combination of any of the above (except land).
Well, what is your definition of property? On page 92 of MESPM, Rothbard explains that property is a good owned. And he also says that we own ourselves, namely our bodies. So, what do you mean? Also, the OP asks what type of economic good it is. You brought up property.
Why would it not qualify as land? Why would it qualify as capital? or labour? or a consumption good? I’m interested in justifications, not just positions. In other words, why should I agree with you instead of someone else?
Well I don’t consider people to (legitimately) be economic goods or property (and an economic good is a type of property). Indeed, speaking of people in such a way inherently invokes the concept of slavery in my mind. I also reject the premise of self-ownership for other reasons that I’ve gotten into before, but I don’t intend to devolve this thread into that debate.
Why would non-land not qualify as land? Think about it. The reason why I imply that people cannot qualify as land is simply a matter of the base meanings of “land” and “person”. The quality of land is inherently agent-external, while the quality of a person is being the agent themself. Land is something that agents occupy and exist within the context of, it is not an agent itself.
I understand that this is sort of a hypothetical question, but I just dislike the premise of the question (I.E. considering people as economic goods, which in turn is to consider them as property). There’s a sense in which you could think of people as economic goods (particularly by framing the matter as the labor of people obviously being a factor of production), but at the end of the day hopefully this is not too literal to the point of treating people as if they really were nothing more than property.
Dare I invoke the “the individual is an end unto themself, rather than a mere means to the ends of others” premise?
If we’re sticking within the realm of the more figurative, people’s bodies could be considered labor (indeed, without bodies there is no such thing as labor), capital (for similar reasons) or consumption in different contexts. Other people could be thought of as possessing properties that one consumes, metaphorically speaking. Other people could be thought of as being labor or capital as a factor of production as well, for obvious reasons. But at an ethical and more literal level, all of those options are abhorrent.
What I wonder is: what exactly is the purpose of this question in the first place? Is it leading up to something?
Capital good, is my guess, especially so given the term “human capital”, although, I suppose it could be regard as a consumption good for those with high time preference.
Actually, reconsidering this makes a lot of sense. Those whose high TP manifests itself in sitting around drinking themselves stupid every day are engaging in capital consumption. In this regard it is strictly analogous to other capital goods, in which case I don’t think it could be considered a consumer good. What people would define as “consuming the body” would simply be failing to upkeep human capital, as occurs with the rest of the capital structure when society’s TP is too high.
Now that you’ve mentioned it I wonder if one could apply ABCT insights into human capital.
So to conclude, it’s a capital good, not a consumption good.
I have a low Tiolent Paper.
Do capital goods die… ?
they depreciate…
The differences between land and capital are mostly trivial.
I wouldn’t say trivial, perhaps practically not very significant.
In a sense, yes. Conversely, there’s a sense in which human capital does not die.
Yes, the difference only matters for explaining certain economic concepts.
You sure it can’t be a consumer good? It can render both services of labour and leisure. For example, I could use my body to work and make money, which would be a productive effort, or I could play chess, which would be consumption. I think it can be a durable consumer good as well. A more extreme example would be a heroin addict, who would be consuming his health for immediate pleasure.