Teallaura and JIm Casy on The Basis of Ownership

[Teallaura]

Personally, I think the idea of agency actually better describes what we call ownership. True property rights belong to God - He created it all, including the materials to create with. He loans us the use as His agents (very similar to stewardship in concept - arguably the same basic concept) but retains actual proprietary rights.

That said, we discuss our agency functions in terms of our own property rights - I would submit that so long as we recognize the ultimate property rights of God that this is not problematic for my thesis.

The idea of intellectual property is merely an extension of invention or patent rights - the idea is that you possess proprietary rights to your own work where that work is not contracted or otherwise supported by another (those property rights usually go to the employer/supporter). It's not particularly arbitrary - it's ultimately an extension of your ownership of your own work.

We exchange proprietary rights by the use of currency - but currency itself is a reflection of our work. Basically, our ownership of our work translates into ownership of things. Work, however, is not limited to the communist concept of labor. Work is just getting things done. If a person gets things done by investment rather than physical labor they are still working and therefore have proprietary rights to the fruits of that work. (Granting that anything can be abused - but that's equally true of the Marxist view of proprietary rights.)

Government performs a regulatory function to protect and to arbitrate proprietary rights - but does not establish those rights per se. Those rights are created by God via His agency. We don't own it but we use it in His stead and collect the profits as His agents, not our own. As a part of that agency - and human imperfection - we use government to regulate proprietary (or areas of management which would be closer to the actual condition) rights in order to conduct the business He has given us via His agency. This doesn't say we don't occassionally 'create' proprietary rights where none actually exist (although I'm skeptical of this prospect) or that our regulations are always fair and equitable - but in a fallen world why would we expect them to be?


That confusing enough? :wink:

[Jim_Casy]

Personally, I think the idea of agency actually better describes what we call ownership. True property rights belong to God - He created it all, including the materials to create with. He loans us the use as His agents (very similar to stewardship in concept - arguably the same basic concept) but retains actual proprietary rights.

Agreed. Everything belongs to God, is dependent on God, and as such, usually I talk about rights of usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct) rather than "ownership". Especially in terms of real property, it seems that both the Bible and classical liberals believe that the land itself couldn't be bought and sold in perpetuity, i.e. no one has property rights to land, only rights of usufruct.


The idea of intellectual property is merely an extension of invention or patent rights - the idea is that you possess proprietary rights to your own work where that work is not contracted or otherwise supported by another (those property rights usually go to the employer/supporter). It's not particularly arbitrary - it's ultimately an extension of your ownership of your own work.

I agree that you possess proprietary rights to your own work, but those rights are generated by the labor itself, not by some contract or social convention. I don't believe that someone can legitimately cede those rights to an employer - the employer's vestedness comes from their participation in the productive process itself, just as the employees does.

Intellectual property is a tough case for me - it doesn't resemble other forms of property and the laws protecting it (copyright and patent) are meant to offset the inequality in physical property; to me, it'd be easier simply to eliminate the need for a concept of "intellectual property", to make patents and copyrights obsolete.


We exchange proprietary rights by the use of currency - but currency itself is a reflection of our work.

Not really, not directly. First of all, the sum the fruit of your labor fetches on the market isn't the same as what you and your buddies take home. So right there, your currency isn't an accurate reflection of your work. Second of all, the currency you're talking about is only a measure of transferable exchange value applied to a commodity - it's not a reflection of the value you've actually put in, otherwise unpaid labor (such as parenting, housekeeping, caring for friends and witnessing) would have no effect on the material functioning of life, something which is obviously not true.


Basically, our ownership of our work translates into ownership of things.

Yep, and the degree to which our work is social is the degree to which ownership is social. It just seems logical that when we work cooperatively with others, the ownership derived from that work is cooperative ownership.


Work, however, is not limited to the communist concept of labor. Work is just getting things done. If a person gets things done by investment rather than physical labor they are still working and therefore have proprietary rights to the fruits of that work.

Wow. You'll have to explain that one to me. How is investing "getting things done"? Without a person in there, fulfilling your commands, a mere input of your capital does nothing. Currency as such has no creative or productive capacity. It's easy to gloss over this by simplifying production into "getting things done". If I'm misreading you, please correct me here.


Government performs a regulatory function to protect and to arbitrate proprietary rights - but does not establish those rights per se. Those rights are created by God via His agency. We don't own it but we use it in His stead and collect the profits as His agents, not our own. As a part of that agency - and human imperfection - we use government to regulate proprietary (or areas of management which would be closer to the actual condition) rights in order to conduct the business He has given us via His agency.

Precisely. Human law is legitimate the degree to which it mirrors divine law, and our laws regarding rights are legitimate the degree to which they serve the realities addressed by the concept of rights. As far as government, government was made for man, not man for the government - it's a tool, just as you said - a means, not an end.

Nice post!

[Teallaura]

Agreed. Everything belongs to God, is dependent on God, and as such, usually I talk about rights of usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct) rather than "ownership". Especially in terms of real property, it seems that both the Bible and classical liberals believe that the land itself couldn't be bought and sold in perpetuity, i.e. no one has property rights to land, only rights of usufruct.

I haven't time right now to look into that but I will.





....



Not really, not directly. First of all, the sum the fruit of your labor fetches on the market isn't the same as what you and your buddies take home. So right there, your currency isn't an accurate reflection of your work. Second of all, the currency you're talking about is only a measure of transferable exchange value applied to a commodity - it's not a reflection of the value you've actually put in, otherwise unpaid labor (such as parenting, housekeeping, caring for friends and witnessing) would have no effect on the material functioning of life, something which is obviously not true. Since I gave no indication of the accuracy or precision that reflection has this really isn't a refutation. Even here you are agreeing it is a reflection of one's work, although you take issue with how accurately and/or completely work is actually reflected by currency. All I said is that it is a reflection - not that it must necessarily be an accurate measure which is what you seem to be disputing here.




Yep, and the degree to which our work is social is the degree to which ownership is social. It just seems logical that when we work cooperatively with others, the ownership derived from that work is cooperative ownership.Eh - no, not really. You're missing a critical component here - contractual agreement. Without it assessing ownership is impossible - in only very, very few cases will all work be equal. Social ownership sans agreement on the nature of that ownership is another way of cheating people out of the value of the labor they put in. Social ownership presumes equality of labor in its distribution of reward but that presumption is almost always false. It's one of the conundrums I see with Marxism - trying to return value to the laborer while at the same time equalizing economic status. It's inherently unfair as those who put in the most labor are invariably cheated of its true value.




Work, however, is not limited to the communist concept of labor. Work is just getting things done. If a person gets things done by investment rather than physical labor they are still working and therefore have proprietary rights to the fruits of that work.

Wow. You'll have to explain that one to me. How is investing "getting things done"? Without a person in there, fulfilling your commands, a mere input of your capital does nothing. Currency as such has no creative or productive capacity. It's easy to gloss over this by simplifying production into "getting things done". If I'm misreading you, please correct me here.I needed to see these simultaneously to answer, hence the interior quote.

How do you get things done without capital? A lubricant is every bit as important as a piston if you want the engine to run. Devalue either and you insure failure. The input of capital is very much like a lubricant - nothing can get done without it.

It would also be analogous to the cam shaft - pistons going up and down in the wrong order or simultaneously do absolutely nothing - the engine simply will not have the power to push the drive shaft (assuming it will crank at all, which I wouldn't bet on). Capitol does have a direct causal relationship to work - money/goods/equipment/et al must change hands at some point or the labor will either never occur or be wasted (excluding the hermit farmer, of course). Capitol, like the cam shaft, makes it possible for the economic engine to function at all.


(A totally irrelevant and hopefully humorous to someone aside:

I hate using the term 'economic - Ry is invariably gonna call me on something and he's usually right. Then I have to start all over...:uneasy:

Yeah, Ry, I know you're out there - now, where are those baby pics? :brood:)




Precisely. Human law is legitimate the degree to which it mirrors divine law, and our laws regarding rights are legitimate the degree to which they serve the realities addressed by the concept of rights. As far as government, government was made for man, not man for the government - it's a tool, just as you said - a means, not an end.

Nice post!

Thank you.

[Jim_Casy]

Jim_Casy
Not really, not directly... the currency you're talking about is only a measure of transferable exchange value applied to a commodity - it's not a reflection of the value you've actually put in,
Teallaura
Since I gave no indication of the accuracy or precision that reflection has this really isn't a refutation. Even here you are agreeing it is a reflection of one's work, although you take issue with how accurately and/or completely work is actually reflected by currency.
Which is why I said "not really" instead of "no". Of course, money has something to do with value being created, but my point was not simply that money is an inaccurate or inexact reflection of value, but more that money actually obscures the reality of the creation of value in commodity production.

Teallaura
All I said is that it is a reflection - not that it must necessarily be an accurate measure which is what you seem to be disputing here.
Well, no. I agree that it is not an accurate reflection, but that wasn't my dispute.

Jim_Casy
It just seems logical that when we work cooperatively with others, the ownership derived from that work is cooperative ownership.
Teallaura
Eh - no, not really. You're missing a critical component here - contractual agreement.
This seems to contradict your previous position on rights and ownership: you said that "our ownership of our work translates into ownership of things" and that property is "not particularly arbitrary - it's ultimately an extension of your ownership of your own work". You also said that "this doesn't say we don't occassionally 'create' proprietary rights where none actually exist". It seems that you are saying that there are property rights independent of their legal recognition (and possibly at odds with legal recognitions). In that case, what does a contractual agreement have to do with property? Especially in an agreement between unequal parties, you might feel like an agreement is unjust but are compelled by circumstances to accept it anyway. These property rights you say are an extension of our ownership of our own work, how are these rights changed by a contract?

Say for instance you and your neighbor start a garden in your backyard. You both tend it, and harvest it, but at harvest, you decide to sell the bulk of it to a restaurant and leave your neighbor some zucchinis. There is no contractual agreement between you two and the garden was in your yard, but don't you instinctively feel that the produce belonged to your neighbor as well? The property stems from the labor put into the garden, not who signs what or where the garden is located. In this case, as with other forms of cooperative labor, ownership is spread among contributors, not reserved for those with a contract or title.


Teallaura
Social ownership sans agreement on the nature of that ownership is another way of cheating people out of the value of the labor they put in.Why do you assume that social ownership wouldn't involve discussion and negotiation over "the nature of that ownership" or types of renumeration?


Teallaura
Without it assessing ownership is impossible - in only very, very few cases will all work be equal... Social ownership presumes equality of labor in its distribution of reward... - trying to return value to the laborer while at the same time equalizing economic status.No, this isn't a necessary condition of social ownership, nor is it a reasonable presumption. Technically, you collectively own public property whether or not you ever use it. Also, people have different desires, different abilities and different needs, so why do you assume that either reward or labor would be equal? Comparable, yes; equal or uniform, no. This distribution could be decided collectively among participating contributors - it's not rocket science and doesn't require an external arbiter.

Teallaura
It's inherently unfair as those who put in the most labor are invariably cheated of its true value.Which is precisely where we are with the current system, but not only the hardest working - everyone is cheated of the true value of their labor.

Personally, I believe that there is much more than needed to supply everyone with a decent standard of living, so I'm not concerned if I work more than someone else, since the option is always there for me to work less if I wanted. Such miserly quibbling only matters in today's system where the extraction of wealth requires the threat of homelessness and starvation to function.


Teallaura
If a person gets things done by investment rather than physical labor they are still working
Jim_Casy
Wow. You'll have to explain that one to me. How is investing "getting things done"? Without a person in there, fulfilling your commands, a mere input of your capital does nothing.
Teallaura
How do you get things done without capital?Remember, the form of capital you're talking about here is investment, i.e. currency.

Teallaura
A lubricant is every bit as important as a piston if you want the engine to run... The input of capital is very much like a lubricant - nothing can get done without it. Capital is nothing like a lubricant. Does throwing money at a productive process make it runs smoother or more efficiently? No, of course not. Capital can be used to buy materials, machinery, space and labor, but it is simply the means to these necessary components, not a replacement for one nor a component itself.

Captial is a resource in production, used to acquire resources needed for production. Making the investing of currency into "work" makes about as much sense as calling lumber's contribution to a chair "work". Does the lumber then "have proprietary rights to the fruits of that work"? Of course not.


Teallaura
Capitol does have a direct causal relationship to work - money/goods/equipment/et al must change hands at some point or the labor will either never occur or be wasted (excluding the hermit farmer, of course).Capital is only a necessary input in a capitalist system, and that's not selling me on the idea. The fact that you leave out the farmer indicates that you realize that capital is not an essential part of the productive process. You're right, though - if we leave it up to capital, nothing will get done unless it generates a profit to return. This puts the criterion of profit in all productive enterprises, including necessities like education, housing and health care. Capital in this sense is a corrosive influence to the process, a parasite rather than an essential part of production.


Teallaura
Capitol, like the cam shaft, makes it possible for the economic engine to function at all.No, labor is what makes the economic engine function at all; capital is an incidental, and merely contributing capital doesn't constitute "work".


Who's got baby pics?

[Teallaura]

Jim_Casy
Not really, not directly... the currency you're talking about is only a measure of transferable exchange value applied to a commodity - it's not a reflection of the value you've actually put in,
Teallaura
Since I gave no indication of the accuracy or precision that reflection has this really isn't a refutation. Even here you are agreeing it is a reflection of one's work, although you take issue with how accurately and/or completely work is actually reflected by currency.
Which is why I said "not really" instead of "no". Of course, money has something to do with value being created, but my point was not simply that money is an inaccurate or inexact reflection of value, but more that money actually obscures the reality of the creation of value in commodity production.Teallaura
All I said is that it is a reflection - not that it must necessarily be an accurate measure which is what you seem to be disputing here.
Well, no. I agree that it is not an accurate reflection, but that wasn't my dispute.That wasn't clear in your previous post. Your argument supported a failure to accurately measure - a point I have no problem with. However, inadequate measure is not necessarily obstifurcation.Jim_Casy
It just seems logical that when we work cooperatively with others, the ownership derived from that work is cooperative ownership.
Teallaura
Eh - no, not really. You're missing a critical component here - contractual agreement.This seems to contradict your previous position on rights and ownership: you said that "our ownership of our work translates into ownership of things" and that property is "not particularly arbitrary - it's ultimately an extension of your ownership of your own work". You also said that "this doesn't say we don't occassionally 'create' proprietary rights where none actually exist". It seems that you are saying that there are property rights independent of their legal recognition (and possibly at odds with legal recognitions). In that case, what does a contractual agreement have to do with property? Especially in an agreement between unequal parties, you might feel like an agreement is unjust but are compelled by circumstances to accept it anyway. These property rights you say are an extension of our ownership of our own work, how are these rights changed by a contract?

Say for instance you and your neighbor start a garden in your backyard. You both tend it, and harvest it, but at harvest, you decide to sell the bulk of it to a restaurant and leave your neighbor some zucchinis. There is no contractual agreement between you two and the garden was in your yard, but don't you instinctively feel that the produce belonged to your neighbor as well? The property stems from the labor put into the garden, not who signs what or where the garden is located. In this case, as with other forms of cooperative labor, ownership is spread among contributors, not reserved for those with a contract or title.You answered yourself - the parties in your example enter into a contractual agreement. You are mistaking the legal enforcement of a contract (which is also important, granted) for the agreement proper. "Social ownership" usually translates to 'everybody owns equally' and as such creates an inherent injustice to the system - he who works hardest or contributes the most gets cheated the most.
Teallaura
Social ownership sans agreement on the nature of that ownership is another way of cheating people out of the value of the labor they put in.Why do you assume that social ownership wouldn't involve discussion and negotiation over "the nature of that ownership" or types of renumeration?Because we call that capitalism, not communism. The concept as usually discussed (you may have something different in mind here, not sure) is a back door version of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' which creates precisely the inherent unfairness I mentioned previously.
Teallaura
Without it assessing ownership is impossible - in only very, very few cases will all work be equal... Social ownership presumes equality of labor in its distribution of reward... - trying to return value to the laborer while at the same time equalizing economic status.]No, this isn't a necessary condition of social ownership, nor is it a reasonable presumption. Technically, you collectively own public property whether or not you ever use it. Also, people have different desires, different abilities and different needs, so why do you assume that either reward or labor would be equal? Comparable, yes; equal or uniform, no. This distribution could be decided collectively among participating contributors - it's not rocket science and doesn't require an external arbiter.Um, maybe not but you're gonna have to translate that for me - you equation to public property makes no sense (public property is held in trust and its use is contractually regulated. Presumably I get the benefits of its use via fees collected thereby reducing taxation in some area or via other intangible benefits i.e. better air quality 'cause there are public forests).

The need of an external arbiter is always as a result of dispute - so how does your system handle Bob who is convinced Sara cheated him? You're probably still operating under the mistaken notion that contractual agreement means legal enforcement of same. You seem to be saying that contractual agreement is inherent to the social ownership concept but that has not been my understanding of it. Contractual agreement is more the purview of capitalism than communism. In communism the contract is imposed (since we've never seen a government wither away this seems a fair overall assessment) where in capitalism a contract is entered into. The exceptions are small ownership issues - i.e. issues that do not involve real property (land, capital, etc) - but since we are discussing this in terms of labor real property would seem to be in view.Teallaura
It's inherently unfair as those who put in the most labor are invariably cheated of its true value.Which is precisely where we are with the current system, but not only the hardest working - everyone is cheated of the true value of their labor.Ya need to be a little more explicit here in step 3... Huh?

Even allowing the point (really need some elaboration there) replacing one unfair system with one that is inherently unfair seems rather like slitting your throat to spite your face.

Personally, I believe that there is much more than needed to supply everyone with a decent standard of living, so I'm not concerned if I work more than someone else, since the option is always there for me to work less if I wanted. Such miserly quibbling only matters in today's system where the extraction of wealth requires the threat of homelessness and starvation to function.And what happens when others don't feel the same way? is it okay to cheat them merely because you are willing to be cheated?

The option to work less is indeed there - which is the Achilles heel of communism. Turns out people do indeed work less when they see no corresponding reward to their labors. Why should Bob work harder than Sara if he's not going to get anything more than she does? Bob isn't an idiot - he only puts in the minimum he needs to choosing leisure (or just goofing off) as his reward. Sara realizes that Bob isn't working as hard and she slacks off even more. Sans external impetus (a foreman) before long neither Bob nor Sara are bothering to work. With no labor nothing is produced and no one gets anything - setting off the very starvation you feared (historically, this has been born out more than once).

What is 'miserly quibbling' to you may be centrally important to an unskilled man trying to support his family. If working himself harder doesn't translate into better circumstances for his family he simply won't do it - unskilled is not a euphemism for stupid. The very labor Marxism so extols is critically dependent on that miserly quibbling - without it production slows down until it finally halts. Our unskilled laborer now has an incentive to go outside the system into the so called black market where he can more reliably exchange his services for financial reward. How do you make the system function then?

Teallaura
If a person gets things done by investment rather than physical labor they are still working
Jim_Casy
Wow. You'll have to explain that one to me. How is investing "getting things done"? Without a person in there, fulfilling your commands, a mere input of your capital does nothing.
Teallaura
How do you get things done without capital?Remember, the form of capital you're talking about here is investment, i.e. currency.So I recall. Bob and Sara aren't getting a whole lot done without it. Unless you are in a bartering system currency does indeed take a real place in the engine even if it is theoretically only a stand in for physical capital or labor.


Teallaura
A lubricant is every bit as important as a piston if you want the engine to run... The input of capital is very much like a lubricant - nothing can get done without it. Capital is nothing like a lubricant. Does throwing money at a productive process make it runs smoother or more efficiently? No, of course not. Capital can be used to buy materials, machinery, space and labor, but it is simply the means to these necessary components, not a replacement for one nor a component itself.Yes, it does. Bob and Sara are both willing to work harder in simple exchange for more currency so yes, throwing money at it, within limits, does indeed get things done - which was my definition of work, remember? Currency's place is as reward - which is critical to obtaining not only maximum labor efficiency (people working harder) but to maintain labor functionality - there comes a point where labor ceases to have any functional effect because the laborers aren't really trying at all.

The analogy works for the times where 'throwing money' at a problem fails to correct it - over lubricating an engine is almost as bad as not lubricating it.

Captial is a resource in production, used to acquire resources needed for production. Making the investing of currency into "work" makes about as much sense as calling lumber's contribution to a chair "work". Does the lumber then "have proprietary rights to the fruits of that work"? Of course not.Um, why are you presuming that currency is merely printed then put into play here? The guy spending the money had to earn it himself - however inaccurately, it reflects his labors. He has no incentive to purchase the physical capital if he is merely going to lose his money, i.e. what he has to show for his efforts to date, in the process. That's true if he's opening a factory or purchasing a stock.

No currency/investment = no physical capital = no need for labor = no laborers = nothing gets done. In that it does indeed get things done currency does do work by my definition.

Teallaura
Capitol does have a direct causal relationship to work - money/goods/equipment/et al must change hands at some point or the labor will either never occur or be wasted (excluding the hermit farmer, of course).Capital is only a necessary input in a capitalist system, and that's not selling me on the idea. The fact that you leave out the farmer indicates that you realize that capital is not an essential part of the productive process. You're right, though - if we leave it up to capital, nothing will get done unless it generates a profit to return. This puts the criterion of profit in all productive enterprises, including necessities like education, housing and health care. Capital in this sense is a corrosive influence to the process, a parasite rather than an essential part of production.Um, rethink this - you just finished using physical capital as an example of an essential component to the process. Now it's not necessary? Even in my example that you cite here that's false - a farmer must have land, seed and tools at a bare minimum to farm. Capital is indeed required even of my hermit farmer.

I noted Mr. Hermit Farmer merely to indicate that I am aware that there are exceptions but those exceptions simply will not prove the rule. At some point, Mr. Hermit Farmer - or one of his ancestors - purchased the necessary capital. If there is a critical failure (severe drought, flooding, his land gets turned over to the Sierra Club as a preserve for the spotted slimy snarf) then he will need to engage the outside world again for - you guessed it - capital. How will he get the physical capital? Through laboring for currency sufficient to purchase it. Even the exceptions aren't fully independent of the system.

Teallaura
Capitol, like the cam shaft, makes it possible for the economic engine to function at all.No, labor is what makes the economic engine function at all; capital is an incidental, and merely contributing capital doesn't constitute "work".Capital of both kinds are essential - the system will not work without both. My definition was merely 'getting things done' and sans currency/investment, things don't get done. Neither physical capital nor labor materialize without it. The only alternative is a barter society - but that really isn't functionally different, it merely doesn't use currency as a facilitator for exchange.

If no one gets paid, no one works and nothing gets done. We can't all be hermit farmers and even they aren't fully independent. In the sense of investment, capital is indeed like the cam shaft as it is used to direct activities in the same way.


Who's got baby pics?Ryokan - his wife had a baby a couple weeks back and he promised us pics - but hasn't gotten them posted yet. :bawl:


(Which, of course, gives us a good excuse to pick on him. :wink: He frequents this forum so I suspect he'll see this eventually.


:brood: So, where are the pics, Ry?)


By the way, do you need help with the formating? This is difficult to follow - quote tags make it much easier.