Re: Venture Communism

From: polar bear (bear_at_pole.com)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:29:36 -0700

In article <4e20d3f.0408180915.515a88f5@posting.google.com>,
quirk@syntac.net (Quirk) wrote:

> polar bear <bear@pole.com> wrote in message
> news:<180820040347410820%bear@pole.com>...
>
> > In article <4e20d3f.0408170915.35ac171f@posting.google.com>,
> > quirk@syntac.net (Quirk) wrote:
>
> > I'm from The School of What Works.
>
> Then you should understand that treating something that is mutual as
> if it where private //doesn't work// anymore than treating something
> private as if it where mutual.

Agreed.
>
> Treating things as if they where something else creates //friction//
> in the society because you have to apply force to make the thing act
> //as if// it where something else.

Agreed
>
> We both agree that Communism doesn't work.

Yup.
>
> The reason can be described as the //friction// of making Human
> Capital act as if it where mutual when in fact it is private.

Right. That, plus the funny hats.
>
> Conversely, Capitalism doesn't work because of the //friction// of
> making Natural Capital private, when in fact it is mutal.

Now here is where we differ (as if you didn't already know) I would
argue that original title ultimately derives from some act of force. In
the first instance, the force required to clear the land and till the
soil, in the second, the force expended either defending it, or
capturing it from a previous owner. That is the history of the matter.
I don't deny it, Mises doesn't, and I'm not aware of any economist
that would. It's axiomatic.

The metaphysical question of who "owns" the land, however, is different
from the material, temporal condition of who holds it for a particular
use at a particular time. The fact is, no matter which political
system you employ, the land is alienated. It's use by one group or
individual BY DEFINITION, excludes it's use by some other group or
individual. Your successful Venture Communist strawberry farm, for
example, cannot be used by some other Venture Commune as a tire factory
without some equitable transfer of title that reflects the VALUE ADDED
to that land by the efforts of your hard work. Whether that takes the
form of money, goods in kind, or labor is besides the point. It's the
Value it holds for YOU that alienates it, and ultimately makes it worth
defending.

So, all we're really arguing here, is what form that alienation takes.
For you it's in mutual form with equal rights. I have no problem with
that. A joint stock company operates much the same way. Both forms
of ownership run up against the same constraints and limitations with
respect to adjacent or affected holdings, which is why we establish
laws to arbitrate disputes. So, perhaps the solution to the problem
is in Law, not Economics? Just a thought.

>
> > As a student, I have many years
> > invested in economic research. As a trader, I have money on the table.
> > What I DON'T have (or need), is an academic attachment to a pet theory.
>
> Yet that is exactly what you seem to have, an academic attachment to a
> pet theory: Austrian Economics, which does not understand that Natural
> Capital is Mutual.
>
> > Thus far, the explanatory power of the Austrians has served me better
> > than those other guys,
>
> Ok, please explain the 25.4% of Children living in Poverty in the USA,
> the richest nation on earth, using Austrian Economics.
>
> Georgists have no problems explaining it. Keynesians can do pretty
> good too. Even neoclassical theory like Ricardo can shed some insight.
> The Austrians will blame the poor for the poverty, or the few social
> programs that help them survive, or the government, or the banks, or
> ....
>
> Thats the strategy of the Austrian and Chicago school, or
> Neoliberalism as it is called, whever reality does not fit their
> projections, which is never, find some scapegoat to blame it on.
> Reality is just never good enough for these "Economists" which is why
> I always think they would be much happier playing Roto-baseball. At
> least Sabremetrics //does// have some explanitory power.

I really don't know why you conflate Austrian Economics with
Neoliberalism. It strikes me as disingenuous. Certainly they share
some common features, but they differ sharply on the question of money
and banking. Sorry, I just don't equate the two, in fact the actual
connection seems to have been made by some antagonist in the early
90's. I certainly don't see academics making this connection.

as for the question of poverty, or general welfare:

(Mises)
In one respect at least present-day welfare propagandists are superior
to most of the older schools of socialists and reformers. They no
longer stress a concept of social justice with whose arbitrary precepts
men should comply however disastrous the consequences may be. They
endorse the utilitarian point of view. They do not oppose the principle
that the only standard for appreciating social systems is judging them
with regard to their ability to realize the ends sought by acting men.

However, as soon as they embark upon an examination of the operation of
the market economy, they forget their sound intentions. They invoke a
set of metaphysical principles and condemn the market economy
beforehand because it does not conform to them. They smuggle in through
a back door the idea of an absolute standard of morality which they had
barred from the main entrance. In searching for remedies against
poverty, inequality, and insecurity, they come step by step to endorse
all the fallacies of the older schools of socialism and
interventionism. They become more and more entangled in contradictions
and absurdities. Finally they cannot help catching at the straw at
which all earlier "unorthodox" reformers tried to grasp--the superior
wisdom of perfect rulers. Their last word is always state, government,
society, or other cleverly designed synonyms for the superhuman
dictator. Human Action, Chapter 35.

What I see you, and most other well-meaning reformers doing, is trying
to make economics conform to some moral standard that is more properly
situated in philosophy. I'm struck by the fact that Christ said the
poor would be with us always. Maybe what he meant is that there ARE
no economic solutions to poverty because the source lies elsewhere. I
don't claim to have the answer. The short answer from the Austrians is
that Capitalism alleviates, not obliterates poverty. I lean towards
this explanation, but for me, it's still an open question.

Which raises an important point. As Donald Rumsfeld recently pointed
out, there's a lot of things we just don't know. Acting as if we do
might be expedient in the short term, but in the long haul it only
hurts us. There's a point where you have recognize that a problem has
no current solution. It then becomes a matter for further research. I
suspect poverty is one such case. I see a lot of blame being passed
around, but I don't see anyone offering a workable solution as yet.
>
> George's Land Value Taxation corelates very well to wealthy
> communities, Keynesian Functional Finance created something close to
> five decades of steady growth in Real Wages until the Neoliberal Gang
> took over and Globalized Poverty, Debt and Instability.
>
> The only "Explanitory" power of neoliberalism is that you can be sure
> that wherever it goes economic disaster follows, see Chili, Argentina
> and New Zealand for more info.

This is starting to sound like a polemic.

>
> > Now, on the question of land and labour:
>
> > > It does not astonish the farmer that buyers pay higher
> > > prices and tenants higher leases for more fertile land than for less
> > > fertile.
>
> It does not astonish anyone, what seems to baffle Capitalists however
> is the notion that there can be no legitimate "buyer" of Land, because
> there is no //producer// of Land to give his consent to the purchase.

By that reasoning, no bear that digs a den or bird that builds a nest
can be said to own their home. It's reducto ad absurdum. You have to
cut it off somewhere for the same reason chemists talk about molecules
and not quarks. Hofstadter calls it level mixing. As a theoretical
construct it may be true, but it's utterly meaningless in practice.

>
> The only way to make Land Private is to forcefully capture and enclose
> it to deny its use to others, this creates friction in the system.

There are no truly frictionless systems.. Your approach would simply
capture and enclose land according to a different formulation. It may
be more equitable, it may not. The best way to find out is to TRY IT,
and see if it works. Maybe you could join a kibutz in Israel and see
how they do it? It sure won't happen just sitting here arguing with
me.

>
> Natural Capital can not be sold, it can only be Rented, even the
> generations of the future, who can not party to any present or past
> "sale" have the same claim on the Land as the actors of today.

A claim, absent the means to enforce it, is just hot air. Whether land
is sold, rented or outright stolen makes no difference. The current
"owner" alienates it from other uses. Ultimately you are right of
course. When the glaciers advance and the oceans rise, all talk of
ownership will end. In the meantime, I need to feed my family, and
anyone that gets in the way of THAT is going to be facing one very
angry polar bear.

>
> > > As I've frequently said, Libertarian Capitalism, Capitalist Anarchism,
> > > Austrian Libertarianism or whatever you want to call it would work
> > > *GREAT* if only everybody had their own planet.
> >
> > We already have a planet.
>
> However we do not have one //each//. Which is what your ideology would
> require.
>
> > What we need is governments that respect
> > private property rights, including the right to own land.
>
> And so when one person ownes all the Land, he then has the "Right" to
> evict you from the Planet?

No but he might send me to Siberia. Of course that wouldn't be much of
a hardship for a polar bear.
>
> Further, are you suggesting that owners of Property in the US are
> having trouble enforcing their property rights??

Well, there's the taking clause and some issues surrounding taxation.
I don't know. I'm not a constitutional scholar.
>
snip
>
> > No doubt you're aware of Catherine Austin Fitts? www.solari.com
> > Study her mythology and the words she uses. Note the simplicity of the
> > language, the appeal to emotion, the inclusive message Make no
> > mistake, she understands this stuff.
>
> Yes, I am interested in Fitts, and will find out more, I would like to
> know, for instance, does she think Natural Capital is private or
> mutual?
>
why not just email her and ask?
I bet she comes down on the side of private property.

pb

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Venture Communism
    ... private as if it where mutual. ... Austrian Economics, which does not understand that Natural ... >> prices and tenants higher leases for more fertile land than for less fertile. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Yet More Anarchism with Roy.
    ... into the pockets of land owners. ... victory for labour is impossible, but at best you have only logically ... And the economic forces described in my impossibility theory explain ... > Anyone interested enough in economics to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • letter to Gorbachev is bogus on its face
    ... the rent of land to be collected privately. ... Collecting rent ... Nicolaus Tideman, Professor of Economics Virginia ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children
    ... in order to evacuate country. ... system of economics, ... So some people aren't as lucky and as happy as Americans, ... Technological advance lets the same land feed more people. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Live8
    ... > the republican party, for the third time I thought it was important for ... > be marxism, christian fundamentalism, which are in my view mistaken. ... NOTHING from you that would contradict my economics. ... "Land is not useful until it is worked upon." ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading