- 22 Jan 2013 13:15
#14154213
Of course. But "harm" is far too vague a standard based on which to prohibit actions. We have to be much more careful in what types of harm justify our moral concern.
In modern societies, "means of production" can refer to so many different things, it is silly to try and address them in a single statement.
"Means of production" can be a $300 computer on which one develops computer code, a $700 car on which one offers rides to others, or, indeed, nothing but one's own energy and resources (as when offering house-cleaning services).
Or, "means of production" can refer to a multi-billion dollar semi-conductor production facility, embodying not just huge investment of resources, but also decades of experience, technical knowledge and entrepreneurial and managerial efforts.
In no case are the means of production monopolised (other than by government forces), nor, as far as a wide range of productive activities are concerned, are the means of production particularly difficult to obtain.
I see. So if I use shears to cut hair, the shears aren't yet "means of production". But as soon as I pay you to cut hair with my shears, they stop being my legitimate property?
If by that you mean "people cannot ignore the need to produce and work" than you are right. People are free to make decisions regarding their own property. They aren't free to make decisions regarding other people's property.
If you don't like "property", an equivalent statement is that people are free to do as they wish, but not to initiate force against other people (or their peaceful projects). Theft is theft, even if the only alternative available is work.
Their ownership of the means of production certainly can, in itself, harm others.
Of course. But "harm" is far too vague a standard based on which to prohibit actions. We have to be much more careful in what types of harm justify our moral concern.
In modern societies, "means of production" can refer to so many different things, it is silly to try and address them in a single statement.
"Means of production" can be a $300 computer on which one develops computer code, a $700 car on which one offers rides to others, or, indeed, nothing but one's own energy and resources (as when offering house-cleaning services).
Or, "means of production" can refer to a multi-billion dollar semi-conductor production facility, embodying not just huge investment of resources, but also decades of experience, technical knowledge and entrepreneurial and managerial efforts.
In no case are the means of production monopolised (other than by government forces), nor, as far as a wide range of productive activities are concerned, are the means of production particularly difficult to obtain.
It's not really ownership of the means of production until they jump from "tools they use for their own work" to "tools being used for someone else's work."
I see. So if I use shears to cut hair, the shears aren't yet "means of production". But as soon as I pay you to cut hair with my shears, they stop being my legitimate property?
Then you don't believe people ought to be able to make free, uncoerced decisions.
If by that you mean "people cannot ignore the need to produce and work" than you are right. People are free to make decisions regarding their own property. They aren't free to make decisions regarding other people's property.
If you don't like "property", an equivalent statement is that people are free to do as they wish, but not to initiate force against other people (or their peaceful projects). Theft is theft, even if the only alternative available is work.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.