Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1921@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 01:28:26 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1921 Posted: Sun Jan 27 01:28:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 21:17:55 EST Lines: 183 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-43100:inmet:7800280:177600:9605 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 26 02:46:00 1985 Xref: seismo net.politics:7480 >***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:40 am Jan 23, 1985 >> > A Response to Ken Montgomery's query: >> > from me: tim sevener: >> > "As I was walking that ribbon of highway >> > I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" >> > But the other side of the sign said nothing >> > That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie >> >> Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any >> other kind of property? >> >> Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >> ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] >> kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only] > >Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians >territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out territories). >The same thing took place in the expansionist days of the Roman Republic. >The aristocracy took control of large portions of Italy and other conquered >territories as part of their participation in Roman wars of expansion. >The aristocracy's large estates ("latifundia") were often unproductive. >But what did it matter? The aristocracy had plenty to live off from their >control of the land. Moreover they displaced the smaller Roman farmers >and replaced their labor with that of slaves. The smaller Roman farmers >were often more productive in their use of the land. But they were excluded >from working the land because it was "owned" by the Roman aristocracy. I hope you are not claiming that this expansion was in any way a Libertarian phenomenon! >The same thing that occurred in Rome is a common problem in many Third World >countries. The Somoza family owned 70% of all the land in Nicaragua before >the Sandinista Revolution. In this case and many others in which a landed >aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle. It is left >idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little >incentive to make it productive. You will note that in such a situation (land seized and controlled by an oligarchy with obvious links to government) there is little incentive for anyone to attempt to buy land -- they don't have any reason to think that their new property would remain theirs. >The aristocracy is guaranteed a portion of >their sharecroppers income anyway. While the peasants would often be glad >and have been proven to work very hard to make the land productive if they >were given the chance, they are excluded from making the land productive >by the claims of private ownership. Hmmm..... Let me see. If I can't buy land here, then I go somewhere else, right? No? What's that Mr. Sevener? I'm supposed to stay and seize land by political means? And here, of course, we have some tricky stuff -- If I still am the legitimate owner of the land seized from me, I've the right to take it back. If, on the other hand, I just feel that A should have more land and B should have less, by what right may I enforce my preference? Certainly a CLAIM of land may be made for evil purposes, but it needn't be respected unless it is valid. >Some Economists who study development have examined successful cases of >development- the US, Japan, and other countries. They have concluded that >land reform, or the distribution of land to a number of small farmers >rather than concentration of ownership by an elite has been a pivotal factor >in successful development. They conclude that agriculture is critical to >successful development -it is the base for industry rather than the other way >around. Who are "Some Economists"? You capitalize the term, implying a degree of importance to these people. Let's hear their names, please. >It should also be noted that both the US and Japan have done the >opposite of countries such as Ethiopia: rather than penalizing agriculture >they have provided price supports and subsidies, extension services and other >aid to make agriculture profitable for the small producer. Yes sir! There's no argument that the government can't cause production to happen, merely that it happens without this sort of crap. It turns out that some fairly large percentage of our farmers are NOT subsidized (I'm quoting a "USA Today" column 1/24/85 from memory, here), and yet we have no soybean famine (soybeans are among the crops not subsidized). I agree that price supports caused production. A LOT of production. That it was needed, or efficient, or even pleasing, is arguable. >This conclusion supports neither Libertarianism nor collective socialism. In fact, it seems to me to support only the thesis that government subsidies did not cause underproduction. Is this news? >For it suggests that some limits to property are vital to people's well-being: PING! Exactly how and when the US re-distribute land among its farmers? If this never happened, on what do you, or the economists you invoke, base this idea? Remember, price supports are a little different from saying: "You, off this land, it belongs to him, now". >so long as a few people (like the Somozas) monopolize onwership that >productivity will lag, and people will be mired in poverty and hungry. Indeed -- a good reason to get OUT of that place. On the other hand, people seem to survive there -- how? Why should the landowners give them even that much? >Thus some intrusion on property rights, implicit in land reform, is good. Not supported. Any bad action may have good effects, but whether the action itself is good or not surely depends on its net effect. That land reform helped in one situation is interesting, but how do you measure the cost in terms of opportunity? Where will smart farmers choose to farm? Where they can be sure to get well paid. Does a place that puts limits on how big a farm may get before being divvied up strike you as a secure place to be an enterprising, land-buying farmer? I hope not. >On the other hand, it shows that many small farmers actually owning their >land are more productive than large collective farms. Excuse me, but I don't think you gave us enough information to make the underpinning to this conclusion clear. I do happen to agree on this point -- The Soviet Union is a classic case. On the other hand, there seems to be some evidence that large agribusinesses (larger than one family, say) are more efficient than small ones. >This is in line with >the notion that people are motivated by their self-interest to work harder. >The critical factor here is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth and the means of >production. Just saying that all property rights are absolutely sacred >(and somehow "fair") seems indefensible to me. At least with property rights, there are few surprises. When the military shows up and kicks you out, that tends to be a surprise (not a happy one). Certainly property rights TEND to be more fair in operation than politically granted boons -- remember, it is human beings (not the owners) who decide who will get what land if you allow the government to redistribute privately, legitimately owned land. >Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their >realm? Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not? I believe they generally claimed to be "defenders", but they certainly were not libertarians. Libertarians in general do not claim the "droit du seigneur", the right of taxation, the low, middle, and high justice, the right to enslave, or attack. Need one continue? >If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations >and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property >mean to the vast majority who own nothing? People generally own their labor. They may exchange the labor for capital (remember, only "most" of the economy is controlled by the cartel). The "freedom of property" means that the capital they acquire may not be wrested from them by someone who controls more government power than the laborers do. Freedom of property gives them a CHANCE. Control of that freedom limits the chance. >THIS is the problem for Libertarianism: it is the problem I have already >raised with case of industrial monopoly. I don't recall when you raised this, but, as near as I can tell, NOBODY has posted an example of a stable monopoly not supported by government. If you can't find one, I'd advise you not to worry about monopoly in the face of freedom -- it's NOT a natural condition. I've had this challenge out for a while ("Find a monopoly that's stable and not propped up by government") and of the two answers, Standard Oil and a welding company called, I think, "Cleveland Electric" the first was unstable, the other turned out to have about 200 competitors and not to control even half of its market. >It is the problem posed by >saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the >justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences. Hmmm..... Consequences. Is an outcome fair? Why? To justify interfering a free market, you must be able to show that you're smarter than the market mechanism -- that your criterion of fairness will result in better consequences than the unconstrained choices of the participants. I'm listening, but one warning: DON'T SUGGEST ANY HUMAN BEING, OR GROUP OF HUMAN BEINGS, as arbiters of what is fair. If they live in our society, they'll become objects of corrupting forces that will destroy (unless they're saints) any objectivity they may start out with. I'll say it again, a society that depends on too many saints in the right places is one we CANNOT construct and maintain.