Ownership

[aid632007]

A question for Capitalists and or believers in Capitalism my question is why is private property rights and ownership better than common ownership or collective ownership of all property or the means of production as in Socialism ?

[Grubb556]

Because usually common ownership usually involves forcefully taking someone's else's property. If people consent to common ownership, such as husband and wife sharing assets then it is fine.

[acptulsa]

Hey, everybody! Party at aid632007's house tomorrow to celebrate the announcement! Let's go drink his beer and trash his carpet! Y'all come!

Don't bother to ask his permission--he's a socialist! He'll be glad to share!

[akforme]

Property rights is the regulator needed. I can't harm your property, be it person place or thing, and you can't harm mine. If you do, you can be liable. If it's "societies" then who gets to decide who gets to do what, and isn't that power going to benefit those who are closer connected to it?

[TheNcredibleEgg]

If you don't own your property - would you spend your time and money to maintain it?

[Wesker1982]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAXcvnNqYeM

[Acala]

When individuals own property and control how it is to be used for their own benefit, they tend to act in a manner that maximizes the use of the property for meeting the needs of others as expressed through demand in the market because this maximizes the owner's return on the property. And the owner tends to take care of the property in the long term to maximize income for his lifetime and to preserve the asset for his heirs. In the same way that you concern yourself with changing the oil in your own vehicle but not in a rented vehicle.

When property is controlled "for the common good", it is, in fact, controlled by some individual or group of individuals that act in their own interest because they are humans. They will tend ultimately to be motivated by corruption and/or political pressure because those will be the routes by which they can benefit personally. They will use the property to meet the needs of those who pay them under the table or those who have political clout. The property will be used without regard for the real needs of the public. Indeed, in a truly socialist society it will be impossible to even know what the true needs of the public are because there will be no functioning price mechanism to communicate those needs. This is why socialist economies are notorious for shortages of needed goods and vast surpluses of goods nobody wants - central planning is impossible. See Von Mises' "Socialism" for the definitive critique on economic calculation in a socialist economy.

When property is held in common and not controlled by anyone, then it will be ruined by overuse because everyone will be motivated to exploit it to its mkaximum without concern for its future use because if they don't someone else will. This is known as the tragedy of the commons. edit; I see Wisker beat me to it.

[aid632007]

I think collective ownership is bad because saying everyone has ownership to my business or to a business is like saying everyone in my neighborhood has the right to wear my clothing or stay in my house or drive my car because of collective ownership does anyone agee with my statement ?

[acptulsa]

I think collective ownership is bad because saying everyone has ownership to my business or to a business is like saying everyone in my neighborhood has the right to wear my clothing or stay in my house or drive my car because of collective ownership does anyone agee with my statement ?

Doesn't exactly explain why the Soviet Union failed spectacularly, but I can't disagree.

[Wesker1982]

See Von Mises' "Socialism" for the definitive critique on economic calculation in a socialist economy.


This is a good start too since its quite a bit shorter and explains a lot:

http://mises.org/econcalc.asp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuy0F0iksPM&feature=related

Even shorter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6c11sREuEc&feature=channel_video_title

and


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLSxITH-1tE&feature=channel_video_title


edit; I see Wesker beat me to it.

fyp ;)
http://msn.mess.be/data/media/20/Albert_Wesker.jpg

[Elwar]

A question for Capitalists and or believers in Capitalism my question is why is private property rights and ownership better than common ownership or collective ownership of all property or the means of production as in Socialism ?


Socialists/Communists fail to understand human nature. They wish for a world where people are not human.

Humans fear pain and seek reward. When we work we trade pain, which we avoid for reward, which we seek. We find a balance between the two that we are comfortable with and either prosper or fail depending on how much pain we're willing to endure.

The socialist system rewards people the same no matter how much pain they are willing to endure. This in turn leaves people to tend toward having a life with no pain (work) whatsoever. They receive the same reward whether they work hard or not, so why work?

The only way a socialist/communist system can work is if the pain endured for the equal exchange of reward under a capitalist system is if you replace it with an outward threat of further pain for not enduring pain. So you get things like the Gulag or death squads or motivation by fear.

I can understand true communists who seek a world where humans evolve beyond needing to seek reward or avoid pain, but most socialists don't understand that. And those who understand it, at least know the challenge of it. It's at that point that I would enjoy having a reasonable argument on which system is better.