fundamental political principles (and fulfilling a rant request)

[cellio]

A few weeks ago 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.

Comments

[sekhmets-song.livejournal.com]

You have very clearly proved my point that one's class bias does very much determine one's view of property rights. I didn't mean to suggest that there would never be shortages, just that it seems a much more reasonable idea to gauge what we need as a society and try to meet that demand than to waste our resources imprinting coveted, high-priced logos on shirts that function no better than shirts without those logos. I think there is a great irrationality of thought in our current capitalist system. To claim that there is never a shortage, "because the market is free", means that you have never identified with those who get defined as "surplus labor." The capitalist system, as it functions in this country, cannot function without denying a certain segment of the population the right to even earn a living.
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.