Poll Question: Is Private Property Good for Society?
Just wondering what the members think of the right to private property. Do you think its a good thing, or is it just "good" for those who have it and bad for the rest? An argument that has often been put forward for the validity of private property is that nobody would work to develop a piece of land or a building, etc., if they knew they would not still own it when they had finished working on it. This is called the "security argument," i.e. people feel more secure in their work if they know that they will keep the fruits of their labour and be able to pass it on to their children. Is this a valid argument?

Since I am the sole "good" vote, I will try and explain why... and that it is with caveats that make my vote affirmative on this matter... I think cael, that you bring up the security argument notion and that is definately a valid issue,as it is in our nature to want to continue our genetic line, and to provide for them when we do. But beyond that in my mind pride of ownership is an encouraging force. not only for development itself but for quality of workmanship, sustainability, ets... we all buy or build the best house we can possibly afford, because where we live is the only place we spend more time in than where we work so it makes sense for it to be a haven. We spend our days in generally negative environments and i think people thrive better when they have some time in more positive surroundings... I think strong governement regulation is necessary though, to prevent an imbalance of wealth through either investment or property. I dont think by encouraging home or property ownership we necessarrily encourage some to have to do with out. I think where we go wrong societally is in the of encouraging development strictly for profit for one investor without concern for the society in which that investment occurs.

The usual argument given against the Security Argument is that private property does not increase security at all. Rather security is a zero-sum game: the cost of making one person more secure in their rights must be an equal and opposite decrease in security of somebody else’s sphere of rights. For example, if the farm is a commons, then many people from a locality have a right to use it. If we turn that farm into private property for the farmer, then his right has become undoubtedly more secure but the cost has been a decrease in the security of the rights of all others who, in a world without private property, would have been able to utilize the farmland.

i disagree, a farmer in charge of a larger area with the benefits of all that farmland could be regulated to be the best steward of that land possible if society chooses to. And if society can be brought round to view that the privelage is not in the money to be made but once again to the quality of the land you pass on, and the quality of what your land produces. all of society can benefit from the increased food production of intelligently limited land ownership. With proper governemntal structures in place, no one farmer could control too much land simply for the sake of greed, leaving as much or as little room for cooperative farmland as society feels is necesarry. Which IMO ALSO needs to be available to people. As does empty commons' land, parks, etc... the problem with ownership as it is today, is that structures in place encourage ownership for ownerships sake... not the pride of proper stewardship, or the pride of a quality societally beneficial use of the land, I think this would be for some (imo those who we WANT to be the ownership class, but not necessarly those who are NOW the ownership class) is a great motivator. society can be brought round to this line of thinkg by taxing intelligently and accordingly... making owning properly and beneficially developed land far more profitable than irresponsibly and greedily developed land, and making taxes progressively profibitive the more land one owns... like to own one home be affordable but to own five be a tax liability and a privelige one PAYS for, not profits from... if people still wanted to own five homes they could, but it would not be for the profitiability that they would do it... but for love of those homes, it should be too costly to do it for any other reason. this would encourage more home sales... and more ownership and much more acheivable spots for all within the middle class. It costs more to go to the cinema and watch 5 movies does it not? we pay more for the privilige of having more of everything we buy, the same needs to be true of property and investments... presumably those who have the most, also benefit most from society so it is natural that they should shoulder most of the burden of keeping it going... this would discourage greed in the long run.

I suppose we live in a society now where farming is a relatively small part of the economy, so even changing the ownership laws of farmland wouldnt make much of an impact. What really does make a massive impact is the ownership of zoned development land, and, as you say, its here that the whole issue of private property really impacts the quality of life of the majority of citizens.

G.A. Cohen's ' Labour, History and Freedom' comprehensively defeats any argument in favour of private property. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

well what are those defeats you speak of vaclav, so we can debate them.... I think property ownership is an incredibly good motivator, without it, larger societies usually suffer, for example germany and the ussr, while highly advanced and successful on some levels, lacked the societal impetus to for instance produce enough bread to feed themselves. The housing stocks during commmunism in these countries detiorated heavily, one of the reasons for this, I believe is lack of the pride of place that comes from ownership. By the same token capitalism without regulation is what leads to the crippling imbalances we see in the west. which are no less a problem than citizens of moscow living with leaky moldy roofs for decades at a time. Since the poor in the US suffer the same fate. Neither one of those conditions produces a society that is successful and best for all it's citizens... People have a variety of different motivators to achieve thier highest potentials. It is because of the fact that in my lifetime i have watched as BOTH sets of extremes have been bad for society as a whole, while moderate countries like scandinavian ones have managed to keep up a decent quality of life for most if not all of thier citizenry...I think that diversity and a moderate ideology are the key to a universally benificial society

Its probably best that people own their own homes, i.e. that one family own one home. Otherwise you get abuses like Dublin City Council banning people from owning certain breeds of dogs. Imagine them trying to tell the residents of Foxrock what kinds of dogs they could keep. However, I think is imperative that homes not be traded as commodities. This leads to the massive abuse we now see in Ireland, where landowners and speculators can turn the majority of citizens into slaves by extorting massive amounts of borrowed money from them.

Proper regulation, mostly of lenders, will prevent that, we have a bursting housing bubble here as well, but basically housing is priced at what people can pay, since most people carry a mortgage, lender regulation will cure 90% of false inflation, people can only pay what thier incomes will bear, yet people will always need to buy and sell houses, the price is dictated mainly by what people can be lent, not by need or market conditions in most places today. Changing that will keep inflation in stride If the problem runs deeper, the whole housing market can be regulated if to limit profiteering. If the first priority of the governement is always the end user, it should lead to better conditions all around. (thats my theory anyway :wink: )

Ireland is in a difficult position in regard to trying to regulate lenders. You can try and regulate their practices, of course, but that generally means trying to get them NOT to lend to ordinary people. Trying to control interest rates is impossible, as long as we stay in the EU. It seems to me that housing should should be taken completely out of the liberal-capitalist system, as food production is in the EU - but without that particular crazy system.

That is not necesarrilly the result of banking regulations, banks need to lend money, it is how they make money, with laws in place to curb thier poor practices, like over lending and profiteering and usory will most certainly help to keep housing inflation manageable. it will decline thier profits a tiny bit perhaps, but more likely it will increase them, as people will not be quite so vulnerable to every sort of financial setback when it comes to thier mortgages. I agree with you however, I think that for the poorest of the poor, something other than traditional capitalist methods are necesarry as those are the sector of society that are the most underserved. Typical subsidized housing like that which most developed nations use is likely not the answer though. I would prefer something closer to a mortgage scholarship, the money put toward government housing could be better spent on a subsidised mortgage for the very young, or the less employable.

You certainly dont have to be the poorest of the poor in Ireland not to be able to afford a home - or even poor at all.

Nor in the US, but here in the US when new deal policies were in full swing, housing was affordable for all but the poorest, it has only been since the tax burden shifted from the wealthy and business sectors, to the middle classes, helping to make a climate of greed and inequality that basic needs became unnafordable. Most people just dont realise how unnafordable things are because we have become mired in a neverending cycle of debt. But again, those who need help to own thier own homes, should be able to get it. Better to have a climate where paying employees a living wage is once again the norm if you ask me, so that a young couple can earn enough of a living to provide these things for themselves. Couple that with sound lending paractices and affording a home should not be beyond reach. It cant happen in a neo liberal economic structure that is geared toward the wealthiest, not the commons though, and that is what both the US and Ireland are in. A strong middle class does not occur by itself, the natural order is for there to be very few rich people and many many poor ones, since those who exhibit a talent for making money, or aquiring necessities in a non monetary economy, naturally tend to keep doing it. For a middle class to happen naturally a sudden drop in population must occur, leaving a large enough labour shortage for labour to name it's price (like directly after the plague) or for a strong representative government to legislate and force a thriving middle class to occur. Even the world Bank and the IMF have recently admitted this and pronounced the neoliberal policies they have been espousing for the last 30 yrs to be failures. The question now is how to turn the current economies in favour of the individual earner again. Eire Nuas policies, if adhered to will work towards that goal. And should all but take care of the current housing crisis.

I submit to you cael that it is natural order, very few societies have functioned without divisions of wealth in sume form or another, in smaller societies, tribal ones come to mind the distribution of resources works quite fairly as the wealthy chieftans are generally ruling over people they love. But very fiw people live this way any longer Once society gets larger, the natural desire to make sure everyone around them is well is offset by the sheer numbers of people around, so those who have more tend to protect it, In the last few centuries the only time wealth has not become completely imbalanced with the majority of money in the hands of few is during times of severe population loss, like the plague, or times where legislation creates it. like the US new deal making LABOUR the commodity valued over money, and thereby forcing those paying for the labour to pay what it is worth. The two examples i gave, one led to the rennaisance and enlightenment i believe, and the other led to some of the best decades for the working classes in the history of the US. But throughout history, when legislation and progressive taxation are not used to maintain a strong and fair econoomy, the balance of wealth grows more and more unfair. and the underclass grows larger and larger.