Monday, April 8, 2013

Own or Be Owned, III: The Abolition of Private Property

Having established that Milton Friedman, poster child for reasoned and polite debate in economics, had no response to binary economics, we probably should look at what binary economics responds to: the idea that underpins both capitalism (greed) and socialism (envy).  We refer, of course, to the slavery of past savings.

The slavery of past savings is relatively easy to understand.  Given that the only way to finance new capital formation is by cutting consumption and accumulating money savings, ownership of capital must be concentrated.  Only those whose capital produces far more than they can possibly consume can afford to finance new capital.  The only question is if the greedy, thieving private owners (a.k.a., “bastards”) will control (“own”) capital, or whether control will be vested in the envious, thieving State bureaucrats (a.k.a., “S.O.B.s”).

Since private sector “capitalists” obviously cannot be trusted, Marx stated clearly in The Communist Manifesto that his entire philosophy was based on abolition of private property in the means of production.  This would deny every person the right to own or share power and profits as an owner of productive capital.

No one could become a capital owner under Marx's vision. Under Kelso's vision, everyone could become a capital owner without taking property rights from current owners, a right that under natural law theory is a right for duration of one's life.

Like Buckminster Fuller's design science principles for making the physical side of the non-human world work for 100% of humanity, Kelso developed the design science principles for restructuring the laws and institutions that make up the "invisible structures" (especially money, finance and tax laws) which determine whether any economic systems delivers economic justice and equality of economic opportunity for everyone without being at the disadvantage of anyone.



shalomes2012 said...

How would life be better in a capital homestead world? can you take us on a tour?

Michael D. Greaney said...

A tour? No. A statement? Yes: just as it is better to be free than to be a slave, it is better to own than not to own. That's all you really need to know. If you think slavery, "a condition of dependency," is better than freedom, then no explanation is possible. If you think freedom is better than slavery, then no explanation is necessary.

shalomes2012 said...

I was thinking of a tour kind of like the one Thomas More enjoyed with Raphael Hythloday when they toured Utopia.

Michael D. Greaney said...

Probably the closest you could get would be Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" without the slavery and with modern technology.

Of course, if want something along the lines of Raphael Hythloday's saga in Utopia, you have to keep in mind three things:

1) It's satire. More was ridiculing ideas like collectivism, the abolition of private property, and wars of conquest. Utopia is definitely NOT a blueprint for an ideal society, any more than Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a serious suggestion to eliminate poverty and over-population.

2) It's fiction. "Raphael Hythloday" signifies "Lying traveler who tells outrageous tales." Raphael is the archangel who fibbed to Tobias, and Hythloday is a neologism from two Greek words meaning outrageous tales.

3) Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen gives a pretty good blueprint, and it's currently in revision.