![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellio![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sekhmets_song posted a
poll
asking "What do you see as the most fundamental political issue?", with
options like "education", "religion", "gender identity", and others.
profane_stencil posted the same poll. In both cases the
most popular answer was "class".
I, on the other hand, feel that the most significant political issue, the foundation on which many others are built, is property -- not who has it (this isn't "class" in disguise) but rather what we believe about property rights. At least for domestic policy; this doesn't work as well for international issues. I've been meaning to write more about this since then, but I've been busy. But hey, I'll take a stab at it now.
I think one's view of property informs many other beliefs -- everything from taxes to abortion to the judicial system. A generic western capitalist probably wants to keep taxes low (keep more of my money), thinks medical decisions belong to the individual (my body belongs to me), favors some level of civil torts (compensate me for damages done to my property), and so on. A lot of the thinking can reduce to "it's my property and I get to decide how to use it".
This view is probably pretty foreign to the generic socialist. (Disclaimer: I must rely more on observation than direct experience in this analysis.) Property really doesn't belong to you, so you don't get to control it -- it's perfectly ok to take from you to help someone else, because helping everyone is the goal and it's all public resources anyway. If socialists thought about their high taxes in terms of "the money they're taking from me", they might not support those high taxes. But since property belongs to everyone, it's not really "my" money, at least not mostly. Sure, we can all benefit individually from our labor, but only with what's left over after meeting everyone else's needs.
(Yes, of course this is an over-simplification. But if you think I've completely missed the mark please speak up.)
In trying to put this in words I realized that the foundation does seem stronger for the first position than for the second. This might just be that it's easier to support positives than negatives. It's not that the socialist is explicit about his view of property rights, but I still think the view comes through by implication.
Many issues depend on this. Education? One view is that you should have access to whatever you can afford (including by being good enough to win sponsorship); the opposing view is that education should be provided to all for no cost for the public good. Health care? Really, it's the same argument. Labor policies? One view is that I should be able to sell my services for whatever price I can get (even a very low one, if that's all I can get); the opposing view is that people have an inherent right to a certain level of financial support and that it's ok to compel employers and forbid low-bidding workers.
While some in the US today seem to think that religion is the fundamental issue (at least in its fundamentalist-Christian flavor), I think that the issues actually being argued under that guise often boil down to property. The right-to-die issue , for example, isn't about religious values at its core; it's about control over the individual. If I believe that I own myself, it would be unthinkable for me to intervene in your decisions even if it's a decision I myself would never make; if I think that the community owns me, then of course it has the right to intervene.
It's not evil to believe in property rights, nor is it inconsistent with supporting those around you. I, personally, believe very strongly in the legal right to the fruits of my labors, the obligation to cover my own expenses (and not take from others), the expectation that I use some of my resources to provide for myself in the future, and the moral obligation to support those who cannot do so. That moral obligation comes from a combination of religion, upbringing, and enlightened self-interest, but the key is that I give, not that someone else takes.
So to me this means taxes for necessary infrastructure and private charity for support, not taxes to be redistributed (at high overhead) by a government that tries to serve everyone from a distance. And yes, I realize that this approach breaks down in large groups; smaller communities take care of themselves better than large nations do. I don't know what is practical to implement in the US today, but a lot of what we're doing now runs counter to property rights, so I find myself getting bugged by it from time to time. For example, I've known for years that I am part of the generation that's going to pay for retirement twice -- once for those retiring before me and once for myself because those who come after me won't be able to support my peer group. From a property-rights view this is fundamentally unfair, even if -- absent the taking of that money from my paycheck -- I would turn around and spend that amount to support others anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 05:18 am (UTC)I think you are mistaken in thinking that they don't already think of it as "the money they're talking from me." I, leaning far to the left (economically) of you, would say that's the practical difference between communism and socialism. In socialism, you pay taxes (and know how much was "yours"). "In communist Russia" (all together now!) "taxes pay you."
(I can't believe I made that joke. :)
I'm unconvinced by your argument. While I can see how you see things in terms of property rights (something I've heard much of from Libertarians; that's canon, isn't it?) I don't really think that's the fundamental issue there. I think what Libertarians are really pointing at, when they call out property rights, is actually the role of the government in society.
Because there's a real simple answer to the question "By what right does the government take my money?": "It's your government, you pay for it."
The rebuttal "But I didn't vote for all these services and whatnot!" only invites the answer "Welcome to Democracy." The People did, so The People have to pay for it.
As unpleasant as that may be for those of The People who disagree, that makes ethical sense, if one grants the legitimacy of Majority Rule.
This is going to sound horrendously bitter (not to mention anti-democratic), and I don't mean it that way at all, I just mean this as a value-neutral observation of How The World Works, but: As others before us have observed, in a democracy there is a tendency for the majority to vote themselves largesse.
As someone (Churchill?) once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others." *sigh*
I would say that the issue of What Is Government's Proper Role In Society, itself rests on something much more fundamental, and that is the issue of What Should The Relationship Of Man To Society Be?
Some people -- you are not among them :) -- think that since society thrives or flounders on the basis of the wellness of its constituent members, society has an interest in and should take an active role in the affairs of its members. This is a man-society symbiosis.
Other people -- perhaps you -- think that society is a fiction, that there really is not greater whole, just large numbers of individuals, and that all individuals need is a mediating body to handle conflicts. As such any action on the part of "society" is considered illegitimate, society is a result of interpersonal interactions, and should never be reified. This is society as product of man.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 05:27 am (UTC)I think most people tend to forget this fact. Sadly.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-24 03:59 am (UTC):-)
I think what Libertarians are really pointing at, when they call out property rights, is actually the role of the government in society.
Certainly Libertarians focus a great deal on the proper role of government in society. That in itself didn't seem to be fundamental (i.e. it feels like a deeper principle guides that), but I think
As unpleasant as that may be for those of The People who disagree, that makes ethical sense, if one grants the legitimacy of Majority Rule.
Yes. We like to talk about how minorities still have rights here (that's why we're set up as a republic, not a democracy, even if the lines are quite blurry in the US today), but it's never clear just how much the minority is protected against an unjust majority.
As others before us have observed, in a democracy there is a tendency for the majority to vote themselves largesse.
More broadly, there is a tendency for the powerful to grant themselves largesse. Being a majority leads to power, but so do corruption, charisma, and probably other things.
Other people -- perhaps you -- think that society is a fiction, that there really is not greater whole, just large numbers of individuals, and that all individuals need is a mediating body to handle conflicts. As such any action on the part of "society" is considered illegitimate, society is a result of interpersonal interactions, and should never be reified. This is society as product of man.
While I'm not quite that extreme, that's pretty close. I think the proper role of government is to mediate conflict and administer that subset of infrastructure that it really, really makes sense to administer centrally (like the army). It's philosophically easier to not open that latter can of worms, but I'm not an anarchist -- just an extreme minimalist when it comes to government. However, I'm also someone who doesn't especially trust people in power to actually look out for the rest of us, so I want the freedom to look out for those I care about directly.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-24 07:13 pm (UTC)With that in mind: I'm going to pretty much agree with
Property is an issue, certainly, but so is labor. The degree and form of the individuals' ability to influence the course of society is quite important. The selection of rights is an issue, but there is a more fundamental meta-issue of whether the individuals *have* rights in the first place. (Many political systems effectively say that they do not -- for instance, in many forms of totalitarianism, the individual at best has privileges.)
At its core, the underlying issue is how the individual and the mass relate to each other. If you have a coherent answer to that, the rest tends to derive from it. But it's very difficult to compare different answers to this fundamental question, because they are generally proceeding from such unrelated assumptions and priorities. The Fascist, Capitalist, Communist and Monarchist not only disagree about the right answers to many quesions, they don't necessarily agree on which quesions are worth asking...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 05:20 am (UTC)I do think that your view of property rights is very much influenced by your class background, though. I think that those whose skills are not currently valued by those in the ruling class would argue, for example, that there is no parity or much that is just in how the cost of one's labor is determined. CEOs are paid incredible amounts for work that our current capitalist society sees as more valuable. Those who produce the products of the company that the CEO helms get paid much, much less for work that most people would agree is more taxing and takes more of a toll on the body and often more of a toll on the mind. Is their labor less valuable to the society? I would argue that it isn't. If the workers at Consumers Energy refused to toil, we would notice that as a society much sooner than we would notice if Consumers Energy's CEO decided to go on strike. It is easy to say that those who are making more money are shouldering a bigger burden through the (theoretically) higher taxes they pay, but it is the working class who produce the products and services that our economy, our governemnt, our society need for us to get through the day, both as individuals as well as as a country. So, your definition of the "fruits of your labor" would be one that a socialist would take issue with.
I think, too, that your assumptions that the capitalist system is more protective of the individual's rights to determine what happens to their body are also not necessarily ones that a socialist would agree with. The capitalist system metes out decisions about health care very sparingly, mostly to those with the luxury to pay for health insurance and for premium services. In other words, if I cannot afford health insurance that covers reproductive medicine (other than pregnancy), and I cannot spare the money from my personal budget to cover a procedure, such as an abortion, I don't get one. Oddly, many HMOs will pay for prenatal care, but won't even cover the costs of birth conrol pills. So, the decision is not as simple as saying that I own my body. I must also own the ability to pay for "extra" services if I am to really have the same amount of freedom of choice as a wealthier person. In a system where health care were a right of every citizen, then all would have the ability to choose, truly choose, what happens with the body they own.
Finally, most socialists are actually fairly explicit about how they think about property rights, and it can be summed up thusly: Capitalism survives based on the idea of supply and demand. Prices go up when something is scarce and they go down when there is a surplus. The system is founded on an idea of chaos and randomness in production. Now, that idea may have been justifiable when capitalism was nascent and small-scale. With the advent of the industrial revolution, production no longer needs to be random. Socialist and communist economies are ones in which production is planned. There is very little surplus and very little scarcity. If we, as a society, no longer wasted our production resources on making too much of one commodity and too little of another, we would find that there is generally enough wealth (property, if you will) to benefit all of us. And then, we would likely also have surplus labor to dedicate some resources to things (education, fighting disease, science, etc.) that get short-shrifted in a capitalist system. That means there would be no "surplus labor;" we would, each of us, be equally contributing to the health and wealth of our society.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 02:31 pm (UTC)The markets may seem chaotic, and sometimes are. However, they react to changing information immediately, and at the point of change. Money and resources go where they're most wanted, and most productive, if they're free to do so. Economies are successful to the extent that they are free. Even totalitarian regimes which free up their markets a bit (Red China) demonstrate the power of economic freedom. There are no truly free markets in the world; virtually all (even the USA's) are somewhat encumbered by socialist junk such as minimum wage laws, working hour limits (France is talking about relaxing them, interestingly, and it's not because they're working so well), mandatory benefits, etc. However, there is a rather strong correlation between national wealth (and even per capita wealth) and market freedom.
In a socialist or communist nation, you will generally have far more equality of condition among the populace than you will in a nation whose markets are relatively free. However, that condition will be rather unpleasant. Cuba and North Korea don't shoot people trying to get in because no one is.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 10:20 pm (UTC)Based on your logic, we should still be living in caves trying to figure out the magic of fire. If we are to abandon all ideas after initial failures, we would not have advanced, perhaps not even survived, as a species. There were also many, many failed attempts at capitalism, as well, before the system managed to work on a large scale. Should the human race have abandoned it after the first few failures? I, for one, don't think so. Simply because you have not come up with the formula to make a planned economy work does not mean that the idea should be thrown on the scrap heap. (Have you figured out, personally, the cure for cancer? No? There have been failures of past attempts. Should we give up? No, I think not.)
Yes, there have been failures of socialist/communist governments. Marx and Engels felt that, if communism were to succeed, it would need to occur after a period of capitalism, so that the production abilities and the resources of the society would be enough to adequately support the members of that society. Your examples are ones in which either no true stage of capitalism was ever achieved (and therefore resources were inadequate) or ones in which the resources have been artificially limited (the US's isolation of Cuba). Most governments would have a hard time surviving under those burdens, no matter the system, without a great deal of oppression of the populace. That lack of resources accounts for the "unpleasantness," not the economic theory, itself. And, I would argue, that your two examples are failures not because of the economic philosophy (and whether or not they are real examples of a planned economy is another argument) driving the system but the method of rule -not democratic, extremely oppressive; I happen to think that all governments are destined to eventual failure if they oppress the population to such an extreme.
virtually all (even the USA's) are somewhat encumbered by socialist junk such as minimum wage laws, working hour limits, mandatory benefits, etc.
Socialist junk? Well, that does say tons about your class perspective. Why not throw out the safe work environment laws or the child labor laws? Let's work them until they die, right?
There are people who believe that there are minimal rights and protections that every human should be afforded.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-24 04:18 am (UTC)Influenced, sure. A person's life is full of inter-dependant connections. That said, though, I don't grant an automatic linkage between class and views of property, because I have met counter-examples of both sorts. More rich socialists than poor capitalists, but some of those too.
(Just for the record, I grew up in a solidly-middle-class home. Dad was white-collar; Mom stayed at home with the kids. We never wanted for food but we had modest habits. My parents saved for college but I also sought scholarships, saved, worked, and took out all available loans. I am in a better economic position now than my parents were then, in part due to not having kids to support.)
I don't think the value of labor is as simple as you make it out to be. There is no absolute scale that says "Joe is worth $5/hour, Bob is worth $500/hour, Sue is worth $10/hour, and Mary is worthless". Certain jobs are worth certain amounts; those values are set by the market or by outside forces depending on one's approach. And not everyone chooses job pursuits based on maximum earning potential; people choose based on a mix of their own skills, their own desires, and their evaluation of their economic needs. So sure, some jobs are unavailable to some people, and sometimes it's even because some people can't acquire the skills to do those jobs, but not everyone works to his maximum (theoretical) earning potential.
Sometimes this is due to obstacles beyond a person's control, like a severe handicap. Sometimes it's due to obstacles that could be addressed -- the bootstrapping problem of supporting oneself while getting training for a better job, for instance. This latter is what welfare is supposed to enable, but it seems to not work very well.
I don't believe that everyone stuck with a McJob has the best job he's capable of doing -- but it might be the best job he's capable of doing with his current level of training. This is a problem, but it's a problem no matter what economic philosophy you follow.
It is easy to say that those who are making more money are shouldering a bigger burden through the (theoretically) higher taxes they pay,
Theoretically? No matter how you count it -- percentage of income or raw dollars -- it sure looks to me from a perusal of the tax tables that it's far from theoretical.
In other words, if I cannot afford health insurance that covers reproductive medicine (other than pregnancy), and I cannot spare the money from my personal budget to cover a procedure, such as an abortion, I don't get one.
While it is obviously better to have health insurance than not, organizations like Planned Parenthood exist in part to help people who can't get these services through other means.
Oddly, many HMOs will pay for prenatal care, but won't even cover the costs of birth conrol pills.
Not odd at all when you consider the increasing role of the far right in governance. While the government doesn't (yet) control HMOs, I don't believe for a minute that there isn't influence. Of course, the more of your life the government administers, the more you are at the mercy of people whose beliefs don't match your own. If we had socialized medicine in the US today, for example, it would not be possible to get an abortion without leaving the country. They wouldn't have to outlaw it; they'd just decline to provide the service.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-24 05:25 am (UTC)Class is much more than the amount of money you have. Perhaps this is where most of our disagreement on the primary issue is taking place: If you define class strictly by financial terms, yeah, one's take on property rights is probably more fundamental. Most leftist thinkers, though, will define class much more broadly than that, to include social factors in with the economic. In other words, your feelings on property rights will be one of the signifiers of class.
Don't mean to suggest that the cost of labor under capitalism is "simple." In fact, I mean something quite the opposite. My biggest issues with the valuation of work in this country is that the capitalist class is the the ones assigning the valuation; in other words, they choose to value their white collar jobs more than blue collar jobs. I have some very large issues with this. Yes, there are jobs that require different skills. Again, I take issue with placing a higher value on the jobs that require the set of skills the capitalist class has simply decreed more valuable (again, I point out the valuation, as defined by pay, of the work done by the CEO vs. the laborers of a power company. We can, in fact, all get through the day without the work that the CEO does, while it would radically affect us all if the power were to stop flowing as the laborers of the company no longer did their jobs). I don't particularly agree with this system of valuation and believe that there are better, more equitable ways, of doing so.
Planned Parenthood is a great organization, and they do what they can, but there is a world of difference in the services, quality and quantity, that they can provide versus a more traditional practice (many Planned Parenthoods, in fact, don't perform abortions any longer) and, while nearly every community has a general practitioner, many, many don't have clinics like PP.
It seems to me that you have a fairly cynical view of government. I won't suggest that you are wrong in having it. I just prefer to think in terms of what we can achieve and not limit us to what we have now. I do think it is possible to have a government that can serve the whole of a society much better than the one we have now. I also think that you can have a more communal-minded system of government as well as have the checks and balances in place to make sure that a majority is not a tyrannical majority. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. Our Constitution is a pretty nifty thing. I think it can be used to lay a foundation for a society that both provides for the material needs of all its citizens as well as allowing them the freedom to pursue their own bliss.
In other words, I think that we can have a socialistic government with rule of law, which provides that the changing tides of public opinion cannot violate the things that we have consistently agreed on, such as the right to determine what happens to our own body. Even within our current system there are limits to your right to your body that we have all agreed to enforce: You aren't allowed illicit drugs; you aren't allowed to use your body in a way that will harm another body; heck, officially, you aren't even allowed to commit suicide. Now, you and I may agree or disagree with some, none, or all of those things. But our society has agreed upon those limitations, and it will take much more than a brief switch in the public zeitgeist to change any of those things. This sort of system of law isn't limited to our current republic; it can apply to a government of any economic situation.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-24 12:16 pm (UTC)Theoretically? No matter how you count it -- percentage of income or raw dollars -- it sure looks to me from a perusal of the tax tables that it's far from theoretical
I think the point is that although looking at percentage of income, rich people ought to be shouldering a bigger burden... rich people are also more likely to be in a position to afford tax shelters, or be paid in ways that don't lead to high taxes (Steve Jobs got paid $1 in salary from Apple every year for the past several years. He was also given a bunch of Apple stock, which will get taxed at the lower capital gains rate when he sells it. Oh, and he was given a jet a few years ago, but I think Apple paid the taxes on the Jet when they gave it to him.)
Or, another example. The IRS knows exactly how much a wage earner makes, because their company independently reports their income to the IRS. Thus, if I were to decide to under-report my income, they'd catch me pretty easily. Richie Rich owns RichCorp, a privately owned company. The IRS has no way of knowing what RichCorp's real income is, because there's no independent reporting. So it's easier for Richie Rich to cheat on his taxes, and harder for the IRS to find out (especially since the current administration has not made this a priority.) (There was an article in the NYT within the past few weeks about this -- they caught a large tax cheat, but only because there were several whistle blowers, and even then it took several years to track the guy down.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 07:46 am (UTC)Looked at this way, the conflict with regard to taxes isn't just over who owns the money (public vs. private) but of how one asserts a claim to owning it. With rights of independence, one asserts a claim by producing wealth or acquiring it in trade. With rights of entitlement, one asserts it by claiming a need. "Victimhood" status is a good way to assert a need; thus the proliferation of attempts to count as many victim points as possible.
Property is one aspect of this conflict, but I think the nature of rights is really the central issue.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 04:46 pm (UTC)Aha. I think you're right here, and views of property are just a manifestation of that. The entitlement approach, for example, asserts someone's "right" to someone else's property.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 02:45 pm (UTC)More broadly defined as ownership, property comes down not only to keeping what one feels that one has, but to the ability to dispose of it as one sees fit. However, one's personhood (opinions, value, sense of self) is not something that can be bought or sold or disposed of; even under slavery one has a quality of personhood. Most of the things you (and everyone) sees as inhering in our system derive from rights of personhood, not the "ownership" or lack of ownership of the self.
So it would be more accurate, I think, to see property as one of a constellation of "rights" that according to our system derive from the fact of personhood. The problem is when those rights come in conflict with each other, as they inevitably do. Liberals resolve the conflict in more communitarian, positive-rights kinds of ways, while libertarians do in more individualistic, negative-rights kinds of ways (enumerating what the state should not be able to do to me). The movement toward "property rights" is just about defining the ownership component of those rights as being more socially useful and worthwhile.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 03:17 pm (UTC)On an individual level, of course, owning or renting a home is a means to staying warm in the winter, owning food is a way of staying nourished, etc. However, property is also a means to feeling in control of one's own environment. This is a very important psychological need, but it doesn't line up neatly with property in the formal sense. Two examples:
(1) If the government witholds 25% of the money in my paycheck before I ever see it, I don't feel disadvantaged. If IRS agents came into my house and seized one out of every four books on my shelves, I would feel violated.
(2) I would not want to work in a place where there were strict limitations on how I could decorate my cubicle, or where I was expected to plug my laptop into whatever desk happened to be unoccupied at the time that I showed up. The cubicle is not in any legal sense my property, but it's a part of my enviroment that I want to control.
Even though I don't believe in any fundamental right to property, I can see that it is in the public interest for the state to insure a certain level of individual property rights. Heck, even the Bolsheviks realized that if they wanted to keep their factories running, they had to pay their managers more than the regular workers.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 03:35 pm (UTC)