- 08 Jan 2011 21:11
#13595841
Although there might not many posters who know enough of the subject to help me, I wanted to try to ask a few questions regarding Mutualist theories of property. Regardless, any input would be more than welcomed.
I have yet to gain a clear understanding regarding the way Mutualists define legitimate property. The key of it is that property is based on possession, on use and occupancy, something that makes sense to me.
The articles I've read have firstly stated the following: all land must be used in order to be owned. This is to prevent the usage of land titles to control access to resources, a form of monopoly. The two main implementations of said monopoly, as I understood, are rent (taking fees to access a land) and depriving resources form the market (owning land in order to benefit indirectly form it not being used). The latter I deem irrelevant for this discussion, as it does not even comply for the most basic definition of use.
I have a my problem begins with the question: how will the rent of absentee landlords be eliminated? I have read that Mutualists suggest that without state intervention the prices of rent will fall by themselves to the costs of maintenance. This as I understand is connected to the abolishing of the banking monopoly, which keeps interest artificially high above the cost of production, which is almost zero. The logic of the relation is correct, after all rented property is just a loan and rent just a form of interest. The problem I see with this is that it technically accepts Lockean property, titles on unused land, and falls the the same problems of that system (mainly, scarcity).
Alternatively, abolishing all rent immediately (so to speak) seems to have its own problems... It seems rather unintuitive to me. Abolishing unused land titles directly will do well to deal with the problems of scarcity based exploitation. but if extended to all forms of property rather than just land, this will also restrict more logical forms of rent. If a man has a car and he never uses it on weekends, it makes sense that he can rent it during that time, rather than sell it... or if a man offers a service which he maintains is that not also a from rent? not to speak of banking, where by does definitions of is free to take another intentionally unused money...
It seems that the first works best for general property and second best for land... which makes me ask myself whether something in my definition of property is lacking... Any thoughts?
I have yet to gain a clear understanding regarding the way Mutualists define legitimate property. The key of it is that property is based on possession, on use and occupancy, something that makes sense to me.
The articles I've read have firstly stated the following: all land must be used in order to be owned. This is to prevent the usage of land titles to control access to resources, a form of monopoly. The two main implementations of said monopoly, as I understood, are rent (taking fees to access a land) and depriving resources form the market (owning land in order to benefit indirectly form it not being used). The latter I deem irrelevant for this discussion, as it does not even comply for the most basic definition of use.
I have a my problem begins with the question: how will the rent of absentee landlords be eliminated? I have read that Mutualists suggest that without state intervention the prices of rent will fall by themselves to the costs of maintenance. This as I understand is connected to the abolishing of the banking monopoly, which keeps interest artificially high above the cost of production, which is almost zero. The logic of the relation is correct, after all rented property is just a loan and rent just a form of interest. The problem I see with this is that it technically accepts Lockean property, titles on unused land, and falls the the same problems of that system (mainly, scarcity).
Alternatively, abolishing all rent immediately (so to speak) seems to have its own problems... It seems rather unintuitive to me. Abolishing unused land titles directly will do well to deal with the problems of scarcity based exploitation. but if extended to all forms of property rather than just land, this will also restrict more logical forms of rent. If a man has a car and he never uses it on weekends, it makes sense that he can rent it during that time, rather than sell it... or if a man offers a service which he maintains is that not also a from rent? not to speak of banking, where by does definitions of is free to take another intentionally unused money...
It seems that the first works best for general property and second best for land... which makes me ask myself whether something in my definition of property is lacking... Any thoughts?
" Whether what you said would still have value for anyone if it Were less well said. Whether you said it well but perhaps Were not concvinced of the truth of what you said."-Bertol Brecht, The Doubter.