Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[Porcupine_in_MA]

How can you claim that "owning something in common" is anything but collectivism?

Common ownership is an individual right. I can access/use so long as my access/use does not infringe on any other individual's equal right to the same.

Collective ownership is a joint right. I can only access/use with the explicit consent of all the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority.

Okay, and the privilege part?

[BillKauffman]

Who bestows the privilege you just mentioned?

The privilege to exclude is bestowed via a title backed by force.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Who bestows the privilege you just mentioned?

The privilege to exclude is bestowed via a title backed by force.

Backed by a group of individuals using force called "government"?

[Caleb]

well, if this thread has done nothing else, it has outed Bill Grennon. Nice new screen name you have, BillyG.   

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I just love showing "the gun in the room" that mutualism boils down to.

[John Edward Mercier]

Mutualism exists in close relationships... such as family, friends, and neighbors.
And really not at the barrel of a gun. You lend things to these people without the expectation of interest or capital gain. But the expectation is that opportunity loss or moral hazard is outweighed by social capital.

Just not really something that has worked on a far-reaching and less personal relationships where social capital is less likely to be significant, moral hazard possible, and opportunity loss likely.

[BillKauffman]

Who bestows the privilege you just mentioned?

The privilege to exclude is bestowed via a title backed by force.

Backed by a group of individuals using force called "government"?

Some groups of individuals can be called "government" others not.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Mutualism exists in close relationships... such as family, friends, and neighbors.
And really not at the barrel of a gun. You lend things to these people without the expectation of interest or capital gain. But the expectation is that opportunity loss or moral hazard is outweighed by social capital.

Just not really something that has worked on a far-reaching and less personal relationships where social capital is less likely to be significant, moral hazard possible, and opportunity loss likely.

If mutualism is what BK has described above where a privileged group get to say who has use of the "common" property, than there is a gun involved.

[BillKauffman]

Mutualism exists in close relationships... such as family, friends, and neighbors.
And really not at the barrel of a gun. You lend things to these people without the expectation of interest or capital gain. But the expectation is that opportunity loss or moral hazard is outweighed by social capital.

Just not really something that has worked on a far-reaching and less personal relationships where social capital is less likely to be significant, moral hazard possible, and opportunity loss likely.

If mutualism is what BK has described above where a privileged group get to say who has use of the "common" property, than there is a gun involved.

The only determination is whether or not any individual's right to self-ownership has been violated by the access/use of any other individual to what is owned in common. So the force is subjecting those you exclude to economic harm. The use of defensive force is therefore just.

[John Edward Mercier]

For example: Mitch Romney did not have the right to force boaters off a section of the lake, which is common property. And the use of force to regain their access to that section of the lake is just.

But what this has to do with mutualism is beyond me...

Wiki:'Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.") Proudhon's Mutualism reluctantly supports labor-owned cooperative firms and associations "only in those cases where it is not possible for the public to rely on private industry," preferring a society of individual entrepreneurs.'

The social ownership of property is collectivism...

Wiki:'Generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by the group and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by individuals. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Some collectivists apply this principle only to the means of production, while others argue that all valued commodities, like environmental goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property'

[Porcupine_in_MA]

If mutualism is what BK has described above where a privileged group get to say who has use of the "common" property, than there is a gun involved.

The only determination is whether or not any individual's right to self-ownership has been violated by the access/use of any other individual to what is owned in common. So the force is subjecting those you exclude to economic harm. The use of defensive force is therefore just.

Did you not state that in a mutualist society there would be a group that would administer privileges over said commonly owned property? So that means that this "common property" is not really common at all but actually owned by a few.

[BillKauffman]

If mutualism is what BK has described above where a privileged group get to say who has use of the "common" property, than there is a gun involved.

The only determination is whether or not any individual's right to self-ownership has been violated by the access/use of any other individual to what is owned in common. So the force is subjecting those you exclude to economic harm. The use of defensive force is therefore just.

Did you not state that in a mutualist society there would be a group that would administer privileges over said commonly owned property? So that means that this "common property" is not really common at all but actually owned by a few.

No, that is what you wanted me to say in order to be able to gloat.

Individuals freely homestead and enclose that which starts out in common. No harm no foul up until Locke's proviso. Since the location itself is not created via human labor it is via privilege that it becomes private property conveyed via title and backed by force for exclusive use.

In exchange for the backing of the title via force the excluder agrees to not economically harm anyone - violating their right to self-ownership - by the exclusion of what is owned in common as an individual equal access right.

The alternative seems to be law of the jungle.

[BillKauffman]

Wiki:'Generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by the group and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by individuals. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Some collectivists apply this principle only to the means of production, while others argue that all valued commodities, like environmental goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property'

This is very confused. Private property and common property are based on individual rights.

Collective property is based on joint rights.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

No, that is what you wanted me to say in order to be able to gloat.

Individuals freely homestead and enclose that which starts out in common. No harm no foul up until Locke's proviso. Since the location itself is not created via human labor it is via privilege that it becomes private property conveyed via title and backed by force for exclusive use.

In exchange for the backing of the title via force the excluder agrees to not economically harm anyone - violating their right to self-ownership - by the exclusion of what is owned in common as an individual equal access right.

The alternative seems to be law of the jungle.

Again, you just said that there was a title bestowed, a privilege of use. That means someone must bestow said title. That means there IS force involved by a certain group and no "common" ownership.

[BillKauffman]

No, that is what you wanted me to say in order to be able to gloat.

Individuals freely homestead and enclose that which starts out in common. No harm no foul up until Locke's proviso. Since the location itself is not created via human labor it is via privilege that it becomes private property conveyed via title and backed by force for exclusive use.

In exchange for the backing of the title via force the excluder agrees to not economically harm anyone - violating their right to self-ownership - by the exclusion of what is owned in common as an individual equal access right.

The alternative seems to be law of the jungle.

Again, you just said that there was a title bestowed, a privilege of use. That means someone must bestow said title. That means there IS force involved by a certain group and no "common" ownership.

Again, the force used is defensive in nature - to uphold individual rights of self-ownership of those being excluded. The original force is the exclusion which forces those being excluded to be economically harmed.