Chapter 1 Ownership
Mises defense of private property is simple. He makes no apologies for the fact that private property is derived from occupation and violence. And out of violence the law emerged. That social life developed in a rational manner he rejects. That private property is derived from a natural right as a rational outcome of human thought is in error. He rejects any divine right. Private property emerged by law of the stronger.
Socialist believe private property can be attacked for this very reason. That it sprung out of illegality and occupation. Arbitrary aquisition, violence and robbery.
Mises answers that according to this view all legal rights are nothing but time honored illegality. And to demand that the law should have arisen legally is to demand the impossible. That the law was formerly unjust or legally indifferent is not a defect of the legal order. Furthermore, the law surrounding property has developed over two thousand years to realize economic continuity and peacemaking. And that no moral claim can be made to justify abolishing two thousand years of historical law making.
Nor is it necessary or useful to abolish or alter the system of ownership. And to endeavor to demonstrate that the demand to abolish private property ownership were legal would be to demonstrate the absurd.
He further claims even if one were able to demonstrate that common property was once the basis of land law for all nations and that all private property has arisen through illegal acquisition, one would still be far from proving that rational agriculture with intensive cultivation could have developed without private property. Even less permissible would it be to conclude from such premises that private proprty could or should be abolished.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The fact that the majority of the 6 billion people on earth can never own private property is not mentioned. Mises supports only the world's small privileged owning class.
ReplyDeleteMillions of homeless and millions of empty houses. Where is the morality in that?
This stark condradiction negates the 2000 years of wonderful law and "peace" making. The expropriators made the law and made it in their favor. To protect the haves from the have nots.
Since Mises claims no moral basis for original violent occupation, then socialists need not make and moral claim for the destruction of private property and 2000 years of law making.
"Equality by force!" is the moral equivilant to occupation by force. Let the law of the stronger prevail.
Mises also does not comment on the continuous violent land accumulation and forcible removal or murder of indigenous groups all over the world today. Which is required for capitalism's survival, in the name of his "modern economics".
"It is hardly necessary to prove today that it is impossible to found on a "land and homestead communism" a social organization capable of supporting the hundreds of millions of the white race". Mises writes.
Who said anything about supporting only the white race?
And socialist's do not need to "prove" they can feed the world. Since capitalism has already failed long ago to do so. Not because it refuses to feed the world, but because it cannot. Capitalism produces only for profit and distributes only to those that can pay. It does not produce to meet human need.
There is no shortage of food in the world today. There is an overabundance of food. Yet 6 million human beings starve to death every year. Tons of food is destroyed everyday when it cannot be sold at a profit.If there is no evidence that homestead farming communities can work to feed the world it's because they are not allowed to work. They are violently attacked and constantly being destroyed.
In violence and contract, Mises quotes Tacitus. "It seems feckless, nay more, even slothful, to aquire something by toil and sweat which you could grab by the shedding of blood."
Mises responds, "It is a far cry from this view to the views that dominate modern economic life".
Really? Tactitus seems to have had a better view of modern capitalism.
This contrast of views Mises writes, "is the contrast between fuedal and bourgeous way of thought. The first expresses itself in romantic poetry...The second is developed in the liberal social philosophy into a great system, in the construction of which the finest minds of all ages have collaborated."
It's the first view that expresses capitalism's philosophy accuratley, and the second that is romantic poetry.
The finest minds? There has always been those that seek to live off the labor of others and reap what they never have sown. I guess they are in fact fine minds in terms of their cunning.
Has ever a poor peasant, slave or wage worker ever been invited to sit at the table of these elites with fine minds? That developed the great system of liberal social philosophy that is based upon legalized robbery and murder?
“With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent certain will produce eagerness; 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent profit and capital will trample all laws; 300 percent and there is no crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of the owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. 1860 Trade Unionist observation
In developing his thesis it appears that Mise is analyzing the concept of owner ship of property from an historical and philosophical perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Mises tries to develop the concept of ownership and the associated properties of ownership as an historical process rather than an evolutionary process. Viewing the development of owner ship as a historical process does not address the why, and it does not address the time period that our species was able to have some mental concept of ownership and possession.
Chapter one does look at the nature or attributes of Ownership. Mises makes the distinction between ownership and possession, public vs private, goods for product/goods for consumptions, Durable and non durable goods. Mise also recognizes that originally, no one person really had “Private Property” in the sense of natural resources or nor did one person have owner ship of production of goods.
In 1959 Dr. Mary Leaky discovered the fossil of a small brain bipedal hominid name Zinjanthropus meaning (East African man) as well embedded at the same geological level were stone tools and fossilized bones of birds and animals, looking at the markings of bones provided evidence that stone tools where used to kill or to cut the animal (Bock, 1974). This raises the question did Zinjanthropus have a sense of owner ship of the stone implements even though they have possession of the tool ? Was the possession of the tool only temporary? Unfortunately from the finds this cannot be determined and it be concluded whether or not Zinjanthropus worked as a social unit. Keep in mind those potassium-argon dating places Zinjanthropus to have existed in at the lower end of the middle Pleistocene period about 1.5 million years ago.
There have been discoveries of other humans, later in the middle Pleistocene period Homo erectus, who dates back about 700,000 years. The tools are considerably more advanced indicating that hand eye coordination has improved which is consistent with the enlargement of the brain cavity. Again it cannot be determined if home erectus had any awareness of ownership and possession, the research does suggest that home erectus had the ability to work as a collective.
The significance of human evolution really dates back about 35, 000 years ago, from the cave drawings it can be seen that early homo sapiens did developed complex tools constructed out of different materials, worked as a collective to hunt and an awareness that they had control over their environment. It is this point the becomes important “The human species became aware that they could control their environment” once the species became aware of ones ability to control the environment is when individuals began to compete for the control and ultimately control of resources. --- continued next post
Continued from previous post
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mise, that ownership, possession did become defined, where on the evolutionary time line he did not specify. What is of interest is the point where communal ownership became individual ownership with the control to maintain that owner ship. Mise argues that possession and ownership can be only acquired by aggression, what he is referring to is that moment in time were some individual of the given society realizes they could take communal interest for their own use by force. Once reaching that stage of development then laws were created to protect that interest. Up till that point most of the early and primitive societies seemed structured in a socialistic structure. If we look at the tribes of South America, prior to European and Western influences, these tribes where communal based, with each member assuming roles for the preservation of the given society as a whole.
Unfortunately this intervention has rendered some of these tribes extinction. What took place after first contact is the resources were taking violently from the aboriginals and the dominant culture justified their action through the laws that they created, However he goes on to explain that once and economical system is established and its dependent on production for its end then violence has to be excluded to keep the system stable, because according to Mise the success of production is dependent on stability, yet we know the dominant economical system does initiate acts of aggression against others to take control of their resources but, that aggression is external to the country that is using the dominate economical system (Capitalism and the free market). What I think he may be saying is that it has to have stability in the hosting country that owns the means of production.
Mises theoretical frame work on ownership, and acquisition seems to be sound, the problems is in the application of the theory. As sound as the theory is in an academic sense, he uses the theory to justify the action of the ruling class when it comes to social control and acquisition of resources.