Land ownership debate

[North Yakistan]

I personally wouldn't, no. I'm sure some would though.

Which in America's case, would result in a massive die off of wildlife across the country. When my Grandpa was in high school, if someone saw a deer it made the local paper. Now you don't go a week without someone hitting one with a car.

Agreed

[Northwest Slobovia]

My family jointly owns 280 Acres of timber and farmland. It's used only for hunting and recreation except for an area rented to our cousin for farming. I'd this exceptable? Is our renting of land somehow exploitive?

What's the problem; it's yours.

As a practical matter, countries that don't have clear land ownership tend to be pretty screwed up. First, many farmers see no reason to keep the land up, since it's not theirs; might as well use it up and burn it out now. This is a problem even in sensible nations, of course, but its worse where some random official could just seize any random hunk of land on the ground that it's "the people's" (China, parts of Africa).

Second, without land title, people can't use land as collateral for loans. This makes it hard for poor farmers to raise money for things that would raise them out of poverty, such as agricultural machinery, higher-yielding seeds, and ag chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, etc). This is a problem mostly in Africa, but also afflicts people in parts of South America, where land titles are dodgy due to current or previous governmental corruption.

[Dejanic]

Well the land your family own isn't easily to define, if it was many acres of land owned by a guy who had dozens of workers farming it, then obviously I'd support that land being commonly controlled by the workers themselves. Since however no surplus is being extracted in your family farm it isn't easy to discuss. Though personally I'd have the land farmed and used for more productive reasons (food, crops, etc, with the distribution of the goods produced being handled by the (theoretical) local workers council. Their certainly wouldn't be a small group of people owning land. Since your family are the ones who live on the land, they would have a chance to take part, as would anyone who lived in the area.

Ok so now to the theoretical.

A man legitimately owns 500 Acres, and runs this as a family farm. In adition to his family he hires to local men as hired hands for an agreed apon salary. Then at the end of each year sells the crops to pay his employees and support his family. Is there anything you would object to here?

Two men seems like a pretty low number to work 500 acres of land, wouldn't a few dozen workers be more realistic? But regardless, the farm would be commonly owned by the community and they would decide through the local workers council what types of goods would need to be produced for the people, the goods would then be distributed on the basis of need (or contribution if we're talking about the lower stage). So all of it really.

Depending on the stage of Communism, we'd possibly have a labour voucher system to encourage production.

[Death Metal]

Apples and oranges.

Laws in a free society ideally exist to protect the citizens within. Unfortunately this is not always the case, but there is no need to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

But what if the activity prohibited by a law is not one harmful to anyone but the criminal, ie the victimless crime of drug use.

Well then the issue goes to at what point does the use become potentially harmful to others that prohibition is necessary.

For example, legalization of cannabis is perfectly reasonable and should be supported, so long as doing things such as driving while high are considered equal to driving while drunk; the person smoking at home harms nobody and is potential of harming nobody- the person smoking while driving runs the risk of injuring or killing others, not to mention potential property destruction etc.

[North Yakistan]

My family jointly owns 280 Acres of timber and farmland. It's used only for hunting and recreation except for an area rented to our cousin for farming. I'd this exceptable? Is our renting of land somehow exploitive?

What's the problem; it's yours.

As a practical matter, countries that don't have clear land ownership tend to be pretty screwed up. First, many farmers see no reason to keep the land up, since it's not theirs; might as well use it up and burn it out now. This is a problem even in sensible nations, of course, but its worse where some random official could just seize any random hunk of land on the ground that it's "the people's" (China, parts of Africa).

Second, without land title, people can't use land as collateral for loans. This makes it hard for poor farmers to raise money for things that would raise them out of poverty, such as agricultural machinery, higher-yielding seeds, and ag chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, etc). This is a problem mostly in Africa, but also afflicts people in parts of South America, where land titles are dodgy due to current or previous governmental corruption.

I totaly agree but Marx does not and I'm interested in hearing what the Marxists have to say.

[North Yakistan]

Ok so now to the theoretical.

A man legitimately owns 500 Acres, and runs this as a family farm. In adition to his family he hires to local men as hired hands for an agreed apon salary. Then at the end of each year sells the crops to pay his employees and support his family. Is there anything you would object to here?

Two men seems like a pretty low number to work 500 acres of land, wouldn't a few dozen workers be more realistic? But regardless, the farm would be commonly owned by the community and they would decide through the local workers council what types of goods would need to be produced for the people, the goods would then be distributed on the basis of need (or contribution if we're talking about the lower stage). So all of it really.


Depending on the stage of Communism, we'd possibly have a labour voucher system to encourage production.

I was raised (and my property is located) in Iowa, the most productive farming region on earth. The average farm is no more than a few hundred acres and is operated by a family and 1-3 hired hands. The Tractor and Combine have eliminated the need for mass labor on Corn and Wheat farms.

So this mans property should be taken from him? He is somehow exploiting these men by paying them for their labor?

[Northwest Slobovia]

What's the problem; it's yours.

As a practical matter, countries that don't have clear land ownership tend to be pretty screwed up. First, many farmers see no reason to keep the land up, since it's not theirs; might as well use it up and burn it out now. This is a problem even in sensible nations, of course, but its worse where some random official could just seize any random hunk of land on the ground that it's "the people's" (China, parts of Africa).

Second, without land title, people can't use land as collateral for loans. This makes it hard for poor farmers to raise money for things that would raise them out of poverty, such as agricultural machinery, higher-yielding seeds, and ag chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, etc). This is a problem mostly in Africa, but also afflicts people in parts of South America, where land titles are dodgy due to current or previous governmental corruption.

I totaly agree but Marx does not and I'm interested in hearing what the Marxists have to say.

After revolution, all will have borscht!

Or some sort of contra-factual magical thinking... it's just a question of which kind of fairies they're gonna invoke. It's always free-market fairies on the right and government-intervention fairies on the left, and it's just a question of details...

[Dejanic]

Two men seems like a pretty low number to work 500 acres of land, wouldn't a few dozen workers be more realistic? But regardless, the farm would be commonly owned by the community and they would decide through the local workers council what types of goods would need to be produced for the people, the goods would then be distributed on the basis of need (or contribution if we're talking about the lower stage). So all of it really.


Depending on the stage of Communism, we'd possibly have a labour voucher system to encourage production.

I was raised (and my property is located) in Iowa, the most productive farming region on earth. The average farm is no more than a few hundred acres and is operated by a family and 1-3 hired hands. The Tractor and Combine have eliminated the need for mass labor on Corn and Wheat farms.

So this mans property should be taken from him? He is somehow exploiting these men by paying them for their labor?

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation. The property should be commonly owned by the community, the man would have the opportunity to work on the land since he would be part of the community. And obviously the goods wouldn't be sold for profit, since generalized commodity production wouldn't exist.

[Cuprum]

280 acres, hunting... Um... Are you a lord or something like that?

Another matter, If you pay your taxes for that land then you don't need to worry about it.

[Blazedtown]

I was raised (and my property is located) in Iowa, the most productive farming region on earth. The average farm is no more than a few hundred acres and is operated by a family and 1-3 hired hands. The Tractor and Combine have eliminated the need for mass labor on Corn and Wheat farms.

So this mans property should be taken from him? He is somehow exploiting these men by paying them for their labor?

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation.

That's not necessarily true. If you can't pay your workers what they're worth and turn a profit, you're doing something very wrong.

[Dejanic]

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation.

That's not necessarily true. If you can't pay your workers what they're worth and turn a profit, you're doing something very wrong.

At my old job I ran 3 cnc machines that turned over a profit of over 500 pounds an hour each, obviously I wasn't paid my full worth, if I did get paid my full worth no profit would be made and I'd be the rich one.

[North Yakistan]

I was raised (and my property is located) in Iowa, the most productive farming region on earth. The average farm is no more than a few hundred acres and is operated by a family and 1-3 hired hands. The Tractor and Combine have eliminated the need for mass labor on Corn and Wheat farms.

So this mans property should be taken from him? He is somehow exploiting these men by paying them for their labor?

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation. The property should be commonly owned by the community, the man would have the opportunity to work on the land since he would be part of the community. And obviously the goods wouldn't be sold for profit, since generalized commodity production wouldn't exist.

Value is subjective. The value of the labor is different to the farmer than it is to the worker.

If the worker believes his time is worth 15$ a hour and the farmer believes his labor is worth 10$, they negotiate untill an agreement is reached on the value of the labor. If the labor required for the job is scarce (maybe it requires special skills) it will be more difficult to find someone to preform it and the farmer will pay more. Labor is a commodity like everything else.

The worker did not provide the land, the seeds, the equipment, he is selling his labor to the farmer in exchange for agreed apon compensation. It is mutually beneficial trade.

[Death Metal]

I was raised (and my property is located) in Iowa, the most productive farming region on earth. The average farm is no more than a few hundred acres and is operated by a family and 1-3 hired hands. The Tractor and Combine have eliminated the need for mass labor on Corn and Wheat farms.

So this mans property should be taken from him? He is somehow exploiting these men by paying them for their labor?

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation.

Value of a commodity = Labor + Materials of production + Supervision + Maintenance of production

[North Yakistan]

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation.

Value of a commodity = Labor + Materials of production + Supervision + Maintenance of production

+ transportation to market + demand

[Northwest Slobovia]

Value of a commodity = Labor + Materials of production + Supervision + Maintenance of production

+ transportation to market + demand

+ transaction costs + depreciation ± effect of government intervention + ...

[Death Metal]

Value of a commodity = Labor + Materials of production + Supervision + Maintenance of production

+ transportation to market + demand

Transportation and demand aren't always part of it, but they can be.

The point is labor isn't the entire value.

[North Yakistan]

+ transportation to market + demand

+ transaction costs + depreciation ± effect of government intervention + ...

Indeed it goes on and on. This is why communism cannot handle scarcity, this vast and complex equation is far better at destributing resources than any man in an office could be.

[Northwest Slobovia]

+ transportation to market + demand

Transportation and demand aren't always part of it, but they can be.

The point is labor isn't the entire value.

...and for many industries, a decreasingly small fraction of it. With increasing automation, it's gonna be less and less of it as time goes on. (Which has good and bad points about it, but that's a subject for another thread...)

[Llamalandia]

Ok so now to the theoretical.

A man legitimately owns 500 Acres, and runs this as a family farm. In adition to his family he hires to local men as hired hands for an agreed apon salary. Then at the end of each year sells the crops to pay his employees and support his family. Is there anything you would object to here?

Two men seems like a pretty low number to work 500 acres of land, wouldn't a few dozen workers be more realistic? But regardless, the farm would be commonly owned by the community and they would decide through the local workers council what types of goods would need to be produced for the people, the goods would then be distributed on the basis of need (or contribution if we're talking about the lower stage). So all of it really.

Depending on the stage of Communism, we'd possibly have a labour voucher system to encourage production.

Presumably the two hired men (though I agree it would likely need to be a few more at least to run it efficiently) would be hired to operate farm equipment which greatly reduces the total amount of labor need cultivate the land.

[North Yakistan]

+ transportation to market + demand

Transportation and demand aren't always part of it, but they can be.

The point is labor isn't the entire value.

I agree, and value itself is subjective. If I'm sitting by a pond a bottle of water is of little to no value to me (assuming its safe to drink from the pond.) if I'm in the desert that water is much more valuable.

That's the problem with labor theory of value, value of an item or of labor is subjective, varying from person to person, and dependent on a wide variety of variables.

[Northwest Slobovia]

+ transaction costs + depreciation ± effect of government intervention + ...

Indeed it goes on and on. This is why communism cannot handle scarcity the real world, this vast and complex equation is far better at destributing resources than any man in an office could be.

Well, sure. In fact, the problem is so ugly, it's not clear to anybody that a computer of reasonable size could actually solve it, even if the inputs where known and clearly stated. The kinda-sorta free market is a messy solution to the problem, but it's the best messy solution to the problem we've got.

[North Yakistan]

Indeed it goes on and on. This is why communism cannot handle scarcity the real world, this vast and complex equation is far better at destributing resources than any man in an office could be.

Well, sure. In fact, the problem is so ugly, it's not clear to anybody that a computer of reasonable size could actually solve it, even if the inputs where known and clearly stated. The kinda-sorta free market is a messy solution to the problem, but it's the best messy solution to the problem we've got.

Well as an Ancap I'd disagree, while our current system is certainly preferable to Marxism most of the problems with "capitalism" in today's world are a result of the states intervention, and that a totaly free market would be best.

(And also moral by the non Agression principle.)

[Dejanic]

To make a profit the farm owner would have to be paying the workers less than the value of their labour, hence wage exploitation. The property should be commonly owned by the community, the man would have the opportunity to work on the land since he would be part of the community. And obviously the goods wouldn't be sold for profit, since generalized commodity production wouldn't exist.

Value is subjective. The value of the labor is different to the farmer than it is to the worker.

If the worker believes his time is worth 15$ a hour and the farmer believes his labor is worth 10$, they negotiate untill an agreement is reached on the value of the labor. If the labor required for the job is scarce (maybe it requires special skills) it will be more difficult to find someone to preform it and the farmer will pay more. Labor is a commodity like everything else.

The worker did not provide the land, the seeds, the equipment, he is selling his labor to the farmer in exchange for agreed apon compensation. It is mutually beneficial trade.

It's not that all value comes from the labour, it's that the surplus value comes from the labour, that's what is exploited and extracted.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Well, sure. In fact, the problem is so ugly, it's not clear to anybody that a computer of reasonable size could actually solve it, even if the inputs where known and clearly stated. The kinda-sorta free market is a messy solution to the problem, but it's the best messy solution to the problem we've got.

Well as an Ancap I'd disagree, while our current system is certainly preferable to Marxism most of the problems with "capitalism" in today's world are a result of the states intervention, and that a totaly free market would be best.

Having visited countries that don't have effective government supervision of the food and drug industries nor obvious interest in reducing pollution (eg, China) I must point out that the facts are otherwise. I prefer to be able to eat, drink, take meds, and breathe the air without constant worries that it might kill me. There are obvious problems with many sorts of government interventions, but I'll gladly pick and choose the ones I like.

(And also moral by the non Agression principle.)

The, um, what? That anything like the Prime Directive?

[Death Metal]

Well as an Ancap I'd disagree, while our current system is certainly preferable to Marxism most of the problems with "capitalism" in today's world are a result of the states intervention, and that a totaly free market would be best.

Having visited countries that don't have effective government supervision of the food and drug industries nor obvious interest in reducing pollution (eg, China) I must point out that the facts are otherwise. I prefer to be able to eat, drink, take meds, and breathe the air without constant worries that it might kill me. There are obvious problems with many sorts of government interventions, but I'll gladly pick and choose the ones I like.

Agreed. There are bad regulations, but also a lot of beneficial ones. Having to play Russian Roulette with my milk is something I'd rather not do, for one.