First off, nothing in your definition of private property proves or even implies that the concept is racist.
Second, the fact is you need to distribute resources somehow, and the people who create and distribute the things necessary to society - food, purified water, etc. - need to be compensated for their stewardship. They’re necessary, yes, but making people responsible for how they use these things - the land they grow the food on, the water they use for crops - encourages them to use these things wisely. If there are no consequences for misusing them, they will be misused. Think of all the public parks where people throw their trash around carelessly when littering laws aren’t enforced. Capitalist systems achieve this by charging people for scarce resources. Thanks to advances in agricultural technology, the vast majority of people no longer need to farm to survive, so individuals on average need far less land to survive. We’re not getting any more land unless we start colonizing other planets, so we need to manage it very carefully. Thus, only the people who really have a use for miles of farmland - or people who have more money than sense - buy all that land. The money that people pay for food supports the farmers and distributors, which allows them to live independent lives. If they didn’t have the right or ability to earn income for back-breaking farm labor, they’d basically be slaves. I don’t need to tell you the racist legacy of slavery.
First off, nothing in your definition of private property proves or even implies that the concept is racist.
I never said nor implied any such thing. I merely described the difference between it and personal property. Please stow your strawmen or I’m not going to continue engaging with you.
Second, the fact is you need to distribute resources somehow, and the people who create and distribute the things necessary to society - food, purified water, etc. - need to be compensated for their stewardship
Sure, pay people for the work they do to extract and distribute resources for the common good. That doesn’t necessitate corporate profiteering or even private ownership, though.
They’re necessary, yes, but making people responsible for how they use these things - the land they grow the food on, the water they use for crops - encourages them to use these things wisely
Holy condescension, Batman! You seriously think that all that’s keeping people from wantonly wasting resources is monetary value?
If there are no consequences for misusing them, they will be misused.
While that’s literally true, in no way does it follow that false scarcity and effective extortion are the only ways. Consequences other than starving or being charged money exist.
Think of all the public parks where people throw their trash around carelessly when littering laws aren’t enforced
That’s not an apt comparison in either type nor severity.
Littering or lack of same has much more to do with caring about the environment and civic pride than fear of getting caught. Nobody’s selling licenses to litter and the same amount of people are dying from not littering
Capitalist systems achieve this by charging people for scarce resources
Nope. Capitalist systems achieve profits by overcharging and deliberately introducing artificial scarcity.
Thanks to advances in agricultural technology, the vast majority of people no longer need to farm to survive
Yet thanks to advances in capitalist exploitation, the average person has a harder time making ends meet than any time since the Great Depression, the Irish Famine or the Indian famine. All of which were the result of rich and powerful people exploiting regular people in the name of capitalism or colonialism, which is capitalism for countries.
We’re not getting any more land unless we start colonizing other planets, so we need to manage it very carefully.
Agreed. Which is why it needs to be maximized for healthy sustainable long term yield, not short term profits like now.
Thus, only the people who really have a use for miles of farmland - or people who have more money than sense - buy all that land
Almost exclusively the latter. Especially when you consider not taking the long term survival of humanity into account a lack of sense. Which I do, but which capitalism doesn’t.
The money that people pay for food supports the farmers and distributors, which allows them to live independent lives.
On the contrary: the vast majority of the money people pay for food go to international conglomerates that exploit the farmers to the point of robbing them of much of their independence since they’re too poor and exhausted to ever escape their situation.
If they didn’t have the right or ability to earn income for back-breaking farm labor, they’d basically be slaves. I don’t need to tell you the racist legacy of slavery
As I pointed out in the beginning, I’m in no way against compensating people for their work.
Funny you should mention slavery, though, since that’s pretty much capitalism at its most extreme. And still legal as punishment for crime in the country with the most incarcerated people of any in the history of the world, which is also one of the most purely capitalist countries in the world.
PS: if your next reply is long as well, could you please break it into paragraphs like I’m doing? An uninterrupted wall of text is much more of a hassle to read, to the point that I was tempted not to bother.
I made that remark because this conversation started on the basis that racism needs capitalism, with which I disagree. I’m sorry that led to confusion and if I’ve offended you.
Sure, pay people for the work they do to extract and distribute resources for the common good. That doesn’t necessitate corporate profiteering or even private ownership, though.
Capitalism doesn’t necessitate the existence of corporations, but they form because people can usually make more money together and reduce their overhead by joining their efforts when it’s relevant. Plenty of people operate their own businesses and aren’t on a corporate payroll. Most of the time, independent business owners use a legal corporation strictly for legal purposes that aren’t directly related to capitalism itself.
And how do you reward people for their work if not with some kind of private property? The current system of private property has been the most successful in causing human progress in all of history.
Holy condescension, Batman! You seriously think that all that’s keeping people from wantonly wasting resources is monetary value?
No, but independent of whatever morals to which an individual subscribes, it is a major factor in how they decide how they use resources.
While that’s literally true, in no way does it follow that false scarcity and effective extortion are the only ways [to penalize misuse].
Every physical resource on earth is scarce. “False scarcity” doesn’t make sense as a concept outside the realm of digital goods; everything physical requires physical resources and time. Arguing that some resources are kept artificially scarce doesn’t disprove the fact that we can deplete the planet’s resources through misallocation.
Considering industry at large, companies have historically wasted precious water through pollution because there was no financial incentive not to do so.
It is not extortion to expect people to be compensated materially for their work with private property. Framing capitalism as “extortion” is a universal acid - in a communal village with a social debt system absent physical currency, you are extorted by your fellow villagers into doing work for them, for example. By necessity, a society needs people to be convinced to do work, and you can do that either through positive or negative reinforcement.
That’s not an apt comparison in either type nor severity.
I used that example as something that’s commonly seen, not to say that industrial resource misuse is on the same level as littering at the local park.
If there were park stewards who fined people every time they dropped trash on the ground and refused to pick it up, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people dropping their trash wherever they want. Certainly civic duty pays a part, but to your point about shortsightedness, litterers don’t care about their actions outside of immediate consequences.
Nope. Capitalist systems achieve profits by overcharging and deliberately introducing artificial scarcity.
Let’s say there are two companies that sell the same thing in the same market. If one company charges more money for their products without any actual benefit to the consumer, customers will choose to buy from the cheaper company. A free market encourages people to sell their wares at the most reasonable price possible. Namely, it discourages overcharging and using artificial scarcity.
Yet thanks to advances in capitalist exploitation, the average person has a harder time making ends meet than any time since the Great Depression, the Irish Famine or the Indian Famine.
This response means nothing in the face of improved living standards for everyone since the Great Depression, Irish Famine, and Indian Famine. There is more access to food, technology, and medicine than ever before, not because people were acting out of the pure intentions of their hearts, but because there was money to be made in making these things cheaper and higher quality. [The average life expectancy in 1900 was only about 47 years,] and about 63 years during the Great Depression, (https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2020/11/20/7035/) while today it is about 77.5 years. Yes, there is a very slight recent dip, but this doesn’t change the fact that the average person today is living 30 years longer than in the past.
Agreed. Which is why [land use] needs to be maximized for healthy sustainable long term yield, not short term profits like now.
I agree with what you said. Even aside from the morality of destroying the environment and wasting perfectly good farmland, doing so will indeed cost significantly more resources in the long run than simply using them wisely.
Almost exclusively the latter [that is, stupid rich people buying absurd amounts of land]. Especially when you consider not taking the long term survival of humanity into account a lack of sense.
On the contrary: the vast majority of the money people pay for food go to international conglomerates that exploit the farmers to the point of robbing them of much of their independence since they’re too poor and exhausted to ever escape their situation.
As I pointed out in the beginning, I’m in no way against compensating people for their work.
I’ve asked you above how to do that without private property; if you don’t want to copy/paste the answer down here in your reply, that’s alright.
[Slavery is] pretty much capitalism at its most extreme.
No, the idea that people should be able to own private property is not slavery. Medieval-style serfdom economies, where a noble demands labor with nothing in return, function much more like slavery (and, I would argue, are slavery). Under capitalism, people can pursue whatever ways to make their fortune that they want. Monsanto is not in cahoots with Microsoft, OpenAI, Amazon, the federal government, and Apple to ensure that people are legally and physically prevented from getting a different job.
And still legal as punishment for crime in the country with the most incarcerated people of any in the history of the world, which is also one of the most purely capitalist countries in the world.
Slavery is not a necessary component of capitalism, nor is any particular legal punishment. We became more capitalist when the 13th Amendment was passed, and we would become more capitalist still if prison slavery was put to an end. I hope we do just that.
First off, nothing in your definition of private property proves or even implies that the concept is racist.
Second, the fact is you need to distribute resources somehow, and the people who create and distribute the things necessary to society - food, purified water, etc. - need to be compensated for their stewardship. They’re necessary, yes, but making people responsible for how they use these things - the land they grow the food on, the water they use for crops - encourages them to use these things wisely. If there are no consequences for misusing them, they will be misused. Think of all the public parks where people throw their trash around carelessly when littering laws aren’t enforced. Capitalist systems achieve this by charging people for scarce resources. Thanks to advances in agricultural technology, the vast majority of people no longer need to farm to survive, so individuals on average need far less land to survive. We’re not getting any more land unless we start colonizing other planets, so we need to manage it very carefully. Thus, only the people who really have a use for miles of farmland - or people who have more money than sense - buy all that land. The money that people pay for food supports the farmers and distributors, which allows them to live independent lives. If they didn’t have the right or ability to earn income for back-breaking farm labor, they’d basically be slaves. I don’t need to tell you the racist legacy of slavery.
I never said nor implied any such thing. I merely described the difference between it and personal property. Please stow your strawmen or I’m not going to continue engaging with you.
Sure, pay people for the work they do to extract and distribute resources for the common good. That doesn’t necessitate corporate profiteering or even private ownership, though.
Holy condescension, Batman! You seriously think that all that’s keeping people from wantonly wasting resources is monetary value?
While that’s literally true, in no way does it follow that false scarcity and effective extortion are the only ways. Consequences other than starving or being charged money exist.
That’s not an apt comparison in either type nor severity.
Littering or lack of same has much more to do with caring about the environment and civic pride than fear of getting caught. Nobody’s selling licenses to litter and the same amount of people are dying from not littering
Nope. Capitalist systems achieve profits by overcharging and deliberately introducing artificial scarcity.
Yet thanks to advances in capitalist exploitation, the average person has a harder time making ends meet than any time since the Great Depression, the Irish Famine or the Indian famine. All of which were the result of rich and powerful people exploiting regular people in the name of capitalism or colonialism, which is capitalism for countries.
Agreed. Which is why it needs to be maximized for healthy sustainable long term yield, not short term profits like now.
Almost exclusively the latter. Especially when you consider not taking the long term survival of humanity into account a lack of sense. Which I do, but which capitalism doesn’t.
On the contrary: the vast majority of the money people pay for food go to international conglomerates that exploit the farmers to the point of robbing them of much of their independence since they’re too poor and exhausted to ever escape their situation.
As I pointed out in the beginning, I’m in no way against compensating people for their work.
Funny you should mention slavery, though, since that’s pretty much capitalism at its most extreme. And still legal as punishment for crime in the country with the most incarcerated people of any in the history of the world, which is also one of the most purely capitalist countries in the world.
PS: if your next reply is long as well, could you please break it into paragraphs like I’m doing? An uninterrupted wall of text is much more of a hassle to read, to the point that I was tempted not to bother.
Sure, I’ll break the response into paragraphs.
I made that remark because this conversation started on the basis that racism needs capitalism, with which I disagree. I’m sorry that led to confusion and if I’ve offended you.
Capitalism doesn’t necessitate the existence of corporations, but they form because people can usually make more money together and reduce their overhead by joining their efforts when it’s relevant. Plenty of people operate their own businesses and aren’t on a corporate payroll. Most of the time, independent business owners use a legal corporation strictly for legal purposes that aren’t directly related to capitalism itself.
And how do you reward people for their work if not with some kind of private property? The current system of private property has been the most successful in causing human progress in all of history.
No, but independent of whatever morals to which an individual subscribes, it is a major factor in how they decide how they use resources.
Every physical resource on earth is scarce. “False scarcity” doesn’t make sense as a concept outside the realm of digital goods; everything physical requires physical resources and time. Arguing that some resources are kept artificially scarce doesn’t disprove the fact that we can deplete the planet’s resources through misallocation.
Considering industry at large, companies have historically wasted precious water through pollution because there was no financial incentive not to do so.
It is not extortion to expect people to be compensated materially for their work with private property. Framing capitalism as “extortion” is a universal acid - in a communal village with a social debt system absent physical currency, you are extorted by your fellow villagers into doing work for them, for example. By necessity, a society needs people to be convinced to do work, and you can do that either through positive or negative reinforcement.
I used that example as something that’s commonly seen, not to say that industrial resource misuse is on the same level as littering at the local park.
If there were park stewards who fined people every time they dropped trash on the ground and refused to pick it up, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people dropping their trash wherever they want. Certainly civic duty pays a part, but to your point about shortsightedness, litterers don’t care about their actions outside of immediate consequences.
Let’s say there are two companies that sell the same thing in the same market. If one company charges more money for their products without any actual benefit to the consumer, customers will choose to buy from the cheaper company. A free market encourages people to sell their wares at the most reasonable price possible. Namely, it discourages overcharging and using artificial scarcity.
This response means nothing in the face of improved living standards for everyone since the Great Depression, Irish Famine, and Indian Famine. There is more access to food, technology, and medicine than ever before, not because people were acting out of the pure intentions of their hearts, but because there was money to be made in making these things cheaper and higher quality. [The average life expectancy in 1900 was only about 47 years,] and about 63 years during the Great Depression, (https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2020/11/20/7035/) while today it is about 77.5 years. Yes, there is a very slight recent dip, but this doesn’t change the fact that the average person today is living 30 years longer than in the past.
I agree with what you said. Even aside from the morality of destroying the environment and wasting perfectly good farmland, doing so will indeed cost significantly more resources in the long run than simply using them wisely.
Farmland is not being “almost exclusively” purchased or used for non-agricultural purposes. Per the USDA, In 2017, about 53 percent of the U.S. land base (including Alaska and Hawaii) was used for agricultural purposes. There are decreases recently, but those are because of retiring farmers, more efficient use of land, and the number of farms down is partly due to consolidation.
Farmers can quit their jobs. Overall agricultural work is expected to decrease 2% over the next ten years despite the overall job market being expected to grow 4%. They are not necessarily slaves. You could make that argument for immigrants who are used as extremely cheap labor under threat of deportation, but the threat of deportation is not a necessary feature of capitalism any more than the suppression of free speech is a necessary feature of communism (from my memory of the Communist Manifesto; it’s been a while).
I’ve asked you above how to do that without private property; if you don’t want to copy/paste the answer down here in your reply, that’s alright.
No, the idea that people should be able to own private property is not slavery. Medieval-style serfdom economies, where a noble demands labor with nothing in return, function much more like slavery (and, I would argue, are slavery). Under capitalism, people can pursue whatever ways to make their fortune that they want. Monsanto is not in cahoots with Microsoft, OpenAI, Amazon, the federal government, and Apple to ensure that people are legally and physically prevented from getting a different job.
Slavery is not a necessary component of capitalism, nor is any particular legal punishment. We became more capitalist when the 13th Amendment was passed, and we would become more capitalist still if prison slavery was put to an end. I hope we do just that.