Séreignaréttur vs. almannaeign - Pro et Contra (C)
ECON: Séreignaréttur vs. almannaeign - Pro et Contra (C) http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/ww_pp.htm    ecomm n

Dow

Jón Erlendsson, 2006-03-15

Í umrćđuni ađ undanförnu hefur mikiđ veriđ deilt um séreignarétt vs. sameign á auđlindum.

Í ţessari umrćđu sakna ég grundvallarraka fyrir séreign vs. sameign.
Í litteratúrnum má sjá ađ mikiđ hefur veriđ fjallađ um ţetta mál af heimspekingum, hagfrćđingum og stjórnmálamönnum.  Í hérlendri umrćđu koma af og til stuttaralegar tilvísanir í grundvöllinn sem byggt er á heim frćđanna s.s.
- "séreignarréttur er hagkvćmari",
- "menn fara betur međ eigin eigur en annarra"

   (sjá Tragedy of Commons).
The tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good.
Sjá http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Ţetta virđast (og eru ađ mínu mati) skynsamlegar röksemdir viđ fyrstu sýn.

Viđ nánari athugun vakna á hinn bóginn upp efasemdir um hvort ţćr  séu tćmandi.


Er ţađ víst ađ einstaklingurinn sem vinnur ađ ţví ađ "hámarka eigin hag" stuđli örugglega ađ hagsmunum heildarinnar um leiđ? 

Ef ţetta er rétt ţá ćtti ekkert ađ vera ţví til fyrirstöđu ađ keyra séreign eins langt og frekast er unnt - frá sjónarhóli hópsins (t.d. ţjóđfélagsins eđa alls mannkyns).

Í ţví sem ég hefi séđ í fjölmiđlum ađ undanförnu virđist mér ađ umfjöllun um ţetta lykilatriđi sé heldur ţunn
- mestanpart örfáar setningar og órökstuddar stađhćfingar.



Venjulegur "Jón Jónsson" fćr sjaldnast dýpri útskýringar en ţetta. Sá sem "kaupir" ţćr verđur ţví ađ "trúa ţví" sem á bođstólum er eđa ekki. Tćpast er ţví um ţađ ađ rćđa ađ "Jón Jónsson" skilji máliđ til botns.

Ţetta getur vart talist bođlegt einkum og sér í lagi ţegar veigamikil hagsmunamál eiga í hlut sem varđa almannahagsmuni. 

Hiđ praktíska vandamál sem viđ blasir ef reynt er ađ "leysa" ţetta
getur á hinn bóginn verkađ snúiđ.
Ekki er unnt ađ láta bakgrunn og perspektív sem getur numiđ tugum eđa hundruđum blađsíđna fylgja hefđbundinni umrćđu - amk á prenti. 

"Jón Jónsson" fćr ţví oftast ađeins einhverskonar "yfirborđ án dýptar". 
Og ástćđurnar eru hreint praktískar.  Praktískt úrlausnarefni sem er nánast óleysanlegt í prentmiđlum mótar ţví vinnubrögđin löngu eftir ađ komin er í raun góđ tćknileg lausn, Veraldarvefurinn og veftenglar!



JE


"A free market does not require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market entrants"

  1. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/226
  2. JE_Linking to the bottom
  3. The Pyramid Principle
  4. FNF: THE PYRAMID PRINCIPLE: MASTERING MORE KNOWLEDGE RELEVANTLY and IN LESS TIME
    HHE:  Viewing VISIO Drawings in IE   http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/visiog.htm   
  5. FNF: PUBLIC INFORMATION: NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT? (CASE: US UNIVERSITIES)  
    http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/wh_ncpih.htm     
  6. ECON: Economic Goals, Economic Criteria and Economic Methods http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/ww_EC_Goals.html
  7. FNF: Informing the Public and Issues of Information Effctiveness  and Information Efficiency  
    POLIT: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and PUBLIC OPINION (Some Technical Issues) (Jón Erlendsson 2004-04-30)   http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/informed.htm


    The Ignorance of the "Public Mind" - Despite vast efforts by the media to inform!
    1. FNF: IGNORANCE: "SADDAM WHO?" SOURCE: Reuters http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/ignorsa1.htm
    2. NS: KRÖFUR - ABET 2000: "A KNOWLEDGE OF CONTEMPORARY ISSUES"
      http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_93306.htm  
    3. FNF: INGORANCE: One in ten Britons cannot name a single world leader
      http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_19688.htm  
    4. FNF: KNOWLEDGE OF GEOGRAPHY (USA): "44 million cannot even find the Pacific Ocean." !!
      http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_80738.htm  
    5. HRIK: Observability in Politics: TRANSPARENCY (Transparency International) http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/probs1.htm
    6. FNF: Skođanakannanir og gildi ţeirra: Ofmetnar véfréttir (Morgunblađiđ, 9. des 1995, bls. 35)
      http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/cq_oprem.htm  

Mixed economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Part of a series on
Economic systems
Ideologies and Theories
Capitalist economy
Corporate economy
Natural economy
Socialist economy
Sectors and Systems
Closed economy
Dual economy
Gift economy
Informal economy
Market economy
Mixed economy
Open economy
Participatory economy
Planned economy
Subsistence economy
Underground economy
Virtual economy
Related articles
Anglo-Saxon economy
American School
Global economy
Hunter-gatherer economy
Information economy
New industrial economy
Palace economy
Plantation economy
Social market economy
Token economy
Traditional economy
Transition economy
Portal:Business and Economics Business and Economics Portal
This box:  v  d  e 

A mixed economy is an economy that has a mix of economic systems. It is usually defined as an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and command economy.[2]

There is not one single definition for a mixed economy [3], but relevant aspects include; a degree of private economic freedom, including privately owned industry, intermingled with centralized economic planning, which includes intervention for environmentalism and social welfare, or state ownership of some of means of production.

For some states, there is not a consensus on whether they are capitalist, socialist, or mixed economies. Economies in states ranging from the United States [4] to Cuba [5] have been termed mixed economies. By most definitions, Canada could be referred to as a mixed economy, as Canadian health care is nationalized in order to provide health care free of charge.

Contents

[hide]

Philosophy

The term mixed economy was coined to identify economic systems which stray from the ideals of either the free market, or various planned economies and "mix" with elements of each other. As most political-economic ideologies are defined in an idealized sense, what is described rarely if ever exists in practice. Most would not consider it unreasonable to label an economy that, while not being a perfect representation, very closely resembles an ideal by applying the rubric that denominates that ideal. However, when a system in question diverges to a significant extent from an idealized economic model or ideology, the task of identifying it can become problematic. Hence, the term "mixed economy" was coined. As it is unlikely that an economy will contain a perfectly even mix, mixed economies are usually noted as being skewed towards either private ownership or public ownership, toward capitalism or socialism, or toward a market economy or command economy in varying degrees.

Which economies are mixed?
Private investment, freedom to buy, sell, and profit, combined with economic planning by the state, including significant regulations (e.g. wage or price controls), taxes, tariffs, and state-directed investment.

Private investment, freedom to buy, sell, and profit, combined with economic planning by the state, including significant regulations (e.g. wage or price controls), taxes, tariffs, and state-directed investment.

There is not a consensus on which economies are capitalist, socialist, or mixed. For example, while many would call the economy in the U.S. capitalist, others call it mixed. According to economic and business historian Robert Hessen: "a fully free economy (true laissez-faire) never has existed, but governmental authority over economic activity has sharply increased since the eighteenth century, and especially since the Great Depression. Today the United States, once the citadel of capitalism, is a 'mixed economy' in which government bestows favors and imposes restrictions with no clear or consistent principle in mind."[6]

But eighteenth century economics was actually defined by the mercantilist system, the imperial command economy which Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations in protest of. His omission of this fact, or the supposition that mercantilist monarchs exercised less "governmental authority over economic activity" than what is seen today, vividly demonstrates the poverty of Robert Hessen's argument. Actually, economies of command have been the historical rule and not the exception. The systems of rule by greater and lesser monarchs, which have characterized the bulk of human political organization through time, lend themselves to royally directed economic policies that serve the interests of the monarch. Only under systems of social democracy, which are relatively recent in their prevalence, can laissez-faire economics arise, and when they have arisen they have only briefly been allowed to remain unchecked by governmental power, because laissez-faire economies allow schemes that polarize wealth and engender predatory trade relationships, and these are socially destructive forces.

The historical tendency of power holders in all times and places to limit the activities of market actors combined with the natural impossibility of monitoring and constraining all market actors has resulted in the fact that, as we understand a "mixed economy" being a combination of governmental enterprise and free-enterprise, nearly every economy to develop in human history meets this definition.

Elements of a mixed economy

The elements of a mixed economy typically include a variety of freedoms:

A TGV train in Paris operated by the publicly owned SNCF. In many countries, the rail network is partly or completely, owned or controlled, by the state.

A mail truck. Restrictions are sometimes placed on private mail systems by mixed economy governments. For example, in the U.S., the USPS enjoys a government monopoly on nonurgent letter mail as described in the Private Express Statutes.

This hospital run by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In most countries the state plays some role in the provision of health care.

This hospital run by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In most countries the state plays some role in the provision of health care.

  • to possess means of production (farms, factories, stores, etc.)
  • to travel (needed to transport all the items in commerce, to make deals in person, for workers and owners to go to where needed)
  • to buy (items for personal use, for resale; buy whole enterprises to make the organization that creates wealth a form of wealth itself)
  • to sell (same as buy)
  • to hire (to create organizations that create wealth)
  • to fire (to maintain organizations that create wealth)
  • to organize (private enterprise for profit, labor unions, workers' and professional associations, non-profit groups, religions, etc.)
  • to communicate (free speech, newspapers, books, advertizements, make deals, create business partners, create markets)
  • to protest peacefully (marches, petitions, sue the government, make laws friendly to profit making and workers alike, remove pointless inefficiencies to maximize wealth creation)

with tax-funded, subsidized, or state-owned factors of production, infrastructure, and services:

and providing some autonomy over personal finances but including involuntary spending and investments such as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as:

and restricted by various laws, regulations:

and taxes and fees written or enforced with manipulation of the economy in mind.

Relation to form of government

Governments can move away from market economies, which by definition involves increasing governmental control and brings the economic system closer to a socialist or command economy. According to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, what is called a mixed economy is a move toward socialism and increasing servility to the state.[7]

Governments can move towards market economies. While governments with harsh restrictions on economic and civil liberties can choose to begin a process to implement a mixed economy, many believe that it cannot be long sustained without causing that government to also implement more and more of the elements of a liberal democracy (or, conversely, that implementing liberal democractic reforms inevitably leads to liberalization of the economy). For example, "the mainstream view holds that China’s WTO entry and the opening of its media system to foreign owners will inevitably undermine the CCP’s authoritarian control and facilitate press freedom."[8]

The economic freedoms that are a necessary part the capitalist portion of a mixed economy are part of a continuum of freedoms, ranging from those that require no governance to those that require very substantial governance in regard to (for example) establishing rule of law that protects private property and free markets (the details are beyond the scope of this article). Many say that economic freedoms are themselves important defining elements of a liberal democracy.[9]

The western democracies implemented elements of capitalism and democracy over the last 300 years or so and perhaps are an example of this.

While the future of China is anyone's guess, many think China can not long follow the economic path the western democracies took without also, perhaps in spite of itself, implementing - over time, incrementally - the elements of liberal democracy. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted by the New York Times as saying on March 19, 2005 in Tokyo, "[When China's leaders] look around them in Asia, they will see that freedom works....They will see that freedom of religion and respect for human rights are part of the foundation of decent and successful societies".[10]

Historic examples

American School (also known as the National System[11]) is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century as the country's policies evolved in a free market direction. It consisted of a three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861-1932) (changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932-1970's), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements, and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises.[12] During this period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880's.[13]

Dirigisme is an economic policy initiated under Charles DeGaulle of France designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence. It involved state control of a minority of the industry, such as transportation, energy and telecommunication infrastructures, as well as various incentives for private corporations to merge or engage in certain projects. Under its influence France experienced what is called "Thirty Glorious Years" of profound economic growth.[14]

Social market economy is the economic policy of modern Germany that steers a middle path between socialism and liberalism and aims at maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, public welfare and public services by using state intervention. Under its influence Germany has emerged from desolation and defeat to become an industrial giant within the European Union.[15]

Modern U.S. economy

The U.S. is considered a mixed economy, which paleoconservatives and other opponents call a managerial state. Some examples of this include:

  • People can own their own businesses, but political leaders make policies concerning these.
  • The government controls the mail system.
  • Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) is a nationalized industry.
  • The government tells manufacturers what to make if something is in need during war time.
  • The FDA bans certain drugs.
  • The government has created a minimum wage law.
  • Some industries, like Boeing, receive government incentives.

Canada

In Canada, health care has beeen nationalized so that the government can ensure that health care remains free of charge and available to everyone (see Universal health care). In addition, there are employment laws (Although often employment laws such as minimum wage are the responsiblity of the provincial governments and not the federal government). Furthermore, there is strong government influence on the postal service.

See also

Note: Quotes in this section indicate content taken from the article in question.
  • Corporatism "Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups."
  • Managerial state "An ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority."
  • Pluralism "In a pluralistic society, power and decision-making (and the ownership of the results of exercising power) are more diffused."
  • Public sector "is that part of economic and administrative life that deals with the delivery of goods and services by and for the government."
  • Public-private partnership "a system in which a government service or private business venture is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies."
  • Welfare state "In many "welfare states", welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services."

Further reading

  • Barr, Nicholas (“Economic theory and the welfare state: a survey and interpretation.” Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2): 741-803. 1992, a review essay looking at the economics literature
  • Berkowitz, Edward D. (1991) America’s Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Buchanan, James M. (1986) Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s New York University Press.
  • Cronin, James E. (1991) The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. New York: Routledge.
  • Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  • Sanford Ikeda; Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism London: Routledge 1997 a hostile (Austrian) approach

Sources and notes

  1. ^ Mixed economy. Dictionary.com
  2. ^
    • Mixed economy entry in The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought by Alan and Trombley, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 535. "A economy in which a substantial number, though by no means all, of the activities of production, distribution and exchange are undertaken by the government, and there is more interference by the STATE than there would be in a MARKET ECONOMY. A mixed economy thus combines the characteristics of both CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM."
    • Mixed economy entry in The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company (2002). "An economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation." -
    • Dlamini, Bongile P. What is an economy anyway? How does it Work? "A mixed economy is an economy containing the characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. In other words, it is an economy with a combination of both the private and the public ownership of means of production, with some measure of control by the central government."
    • Mixed economy entry in The Language of Money by Edna Carew. "One containing features of both capitalism and socialism. Australia is a mixed economy, with major state-owned enterprises in communications, transport, banking, energy generation and health services, as well as privately owned enterprises in the same areas. In common with capitalist economies such as the UK and New Zealand, Australian governments are reducing these activities by privatising state-operated businesses. Other examples are seen in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where newly independent states have embraced the principles of private enterprise. China, too, provides a striking illustration of the transition to a mixed economy."
    • Diane Kendall, Jane Lothian Murray, Rick Linden. Sociology In Our Timesictionary, Chapter 13, Nelson, a divions of Thomson Canada Limited (2004). "A mixed economy combines elements of a market economy (capitalism) with elements of a command economy (socialism)."
    • Mixed economy entry in Political Dictionary, Executive Clarity (2006). "an economy in which elements from the free enterprise system are combined with elements of socialism. Most industrial economies, now including those in the post-communist world, are mixed economies."
    • The Failure of Economic Interventionism, Joint Economic Committee Economic Classics, December 1994, No. 2. "With a hubris peculiar to intellectuals and the politicians who expediently latch onto their scribblings, academic and political elites in the West insisted that "socialism prudently applied," by the likes of themselves mostly, could provide a "third path" between pure socialism and capitalism. On this third path, which became known as a "mixed economy," government would selectively and carefully intervene into the free market to "improve" it"
    • Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Boston:Riverside Press (1962). "The broad liberal objective is a balanced and flexible "mixed economy," thus seeking to occupy that middle ground between capitalism and socialism whose viability has so long been denied by both capitalists and socialists."
    • Gorman, Tom. The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics, Alpha Books (2003), p. 9"In a market economy, the private-sector businesses and consumers decide what they will produce and purchase, with little government intervention....In a command economy, also known as a planned economy, the government largely determines what is produced and in what amounts. In a mixed economy, both market forces and government decisions determine which goods and services are produced and how they are distributed."
  3. ^ A variety of definitions for mixed economy.
  4. ^ How the U.S. Economy Works article says "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles. Indeed, some of the most enduring debates of American economic history focus on the relative roles of the public and private sectors. The American free enterprise system emphasizes private ownership. Private businesses produce most goods and services, and almost two-thirds of the nation's total economic output goes to individuals for personal use (the remaining one-third is bought by government and business). The consumer role is so great, in fact, that the nation is sometimes characterized as having a 'consumer economy'."
  5. ^ The Challenges of Cuba's Economy - An Interview with Dr. Antonio Romero In 1998 "Transformations have occurred in property ownership, employment systems, and income levels to the extent that today we have a particular kind of mixed economy."
  6. ^ Economy Library
  7. ^ Gardner, Martin. Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, St. Martin's Press (1991), p. 126
  8. ^ Newint
  9. ^ ibiblio.org
  10. ^ New York Times
  11. ^ The Library of Economics and Liberty on-line Book titled The National System of Political Economy by Friedrich List
  12. ^ (Boritt, Richardson, Lind)
  13. ^ (Gill 39)
  14. ^ (Gardner)
  15. ^ (Gardner)
  • Gill: "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world.: (from "Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy" Chapter 6 titled "America becomes Number 1" pg. 39-49 - published 1990 by Praeger Publishers in the USA - ISBN 0-275-93316-4)
  • Lind: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865-1932, by presoding over the industrialization of the United State, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "...Hamiltonian side...the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Introduction pg. xiv-xv - published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
  • Lind: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229-230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
  • Richardson: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes thar reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government." (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA - ISBN 0-674-36213-6)
  • Boritt: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pg. 196-197 published 1994 by University of Illinois Press in the USA - ISBN 0252064453

 

Property

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article deals with property in the context of legal or moral ownership rights. For other meanings, see property (disambiguation).
Property law
Part of the common law series
Acquisition of property
Gift  · Adverse possession  · Deed
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property
Alienation  · Bailment  · Licence
Estates in land
Allodial title  · Fee simple
Life estate  · Fee tail  · Future interest
Concurrent estate  · Leasehold estate
Condominiums
Conveyancing of interests in land
Bona fide purchaser  · Torrens title
Estoppel by deed  · Quitclaim deed
Mortgage  · Equitable conversion
Action to quiet title
Limiting control over future use
Restraint on alienation
Rule against perpetuities
Rule in Shelley's Case
Doctrine of worthier title
Nonpossessory interest in land
Easement  · Profit
Covenant running with the land
Equitable servitude
Related topics
Fixtures  · Waste  · Partition
Riparian water rights
Lateral and subjacent support
Assignment  · Nemo dat
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law
Wills and trusts
Criminal Law  · Evidence

Property designates those things that are commonly recognized as being the possessions of a person or group. Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them morality or natural law.

Contents

[hide]

Use of the term

Various scholarly communities (e.g., law, economics, anthropology, sociology) may treat the concept more systematically, but definitions vary within and between fields. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a bundle of rights. They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.

Private property is sometimes used synonymously with individual ownership, but the term may also be used to include collectively-owned property in the form of corporate ownership.[1] Both of these are distinct from public property, which is that which belongs to a whole community collectively or a state.

General characteristics

Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal individuals, even if the legal individual is not a real person. Corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to American citizens, including many of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the corporation is a juristic person or artificial legal entity, which some refer to as "corporate personhood".

Property rights are protected in the current laws of states usually found in the form of a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, for example, provides explicitly for the protection of private property against arbitrary seizure by government, providing in part that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Protection is also found in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, and in the The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article XVII, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 1.

Property is usually thought of in terms of a bundle of rights as defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts.

Traditionally, that bundle of rights includes:

  1. control of the use of the property
  2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
  3. a right to transfer or sell the property
  4. a right to exclude others from the property.

Legal systems have evolved to cover the transactions and disputes which arise over the possession, use, transfer and disposal of property, most particularly involving contracts. Positive law defines such rights, and a judiciary is used to adjudicate and to enforce.

In his classic text, "The Common Law", Oliver Wendell Holmes describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to individuals, as opposed to families or entities such as the church.

According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights, and the belief that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market is central to capitalism. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living.

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)
Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others.
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law)
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)
  • Socialism's fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that even when property rights encourage the property-holder to develop his property, generate wealth, etc., he will only do so for his own benefit, which may not coincide with the benefit of other people or society at large (and which is argued to go against the interests of non-property-holders).
  • Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with. This type of property system has the effect of preventing capitalism.
  • Communism argues that only collective ownership through a polity, though not necessarily a state, will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore all, or almost all, private property should be abolished.

    Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate. This argument is centered mainly on the idea that the creation of private property will always benefit one class over another, giving way to domination through the use of this private property. However, some socialists believe in the use of personal property and communists are not opposed to that which is "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned" (Communist Manifesto), by members of the proletariat.

Not every person, or entity, with an interest in a given piece of property may be able to exercise all of the rights mentioned a few paragraphs above. For example, as a lessee of a particular piece of property, you may not sell the property, because the tenant is only in possession, and does not have title to transfer. Similarly, while you are a lessee the owner cannot use his or her right to exclude to keep you from the property. (Or, if he or she does you may perhaps be entitled to stop paying rent or perhaps sue to regain access.)

Further, property may be held in a number of forms, e.g. joint ownership, community property, sole ownership, lease, etc. These different types of ownership may complicate an owner's ability to exercise his or her rights unilaterally. For example if two people own a single piece of land as joint tenants, then depending on the law in the jurisdiction, each may have limited recourse for the actions of the other. For example, one of the owners might sell his or her interest in the property to a stranger that the other owner does not particularly like.

Theories of property

A natural rights definition of property rights was advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others"[1].

Anthropology studies the diverse systems of ownership, rights of use and transfer, and possession under the term "theories of property". Western legal theory is based, as mentioned, on the owner of property being a legal individual. However, not all property systems are founded on this basis.

In every culture studied ownership and possession are the subject of custom and regulation, and "law" where the term can meaningfully be applied. Many tribal cultures balance individual ownership with the laws of collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. For example the 1839 Cherokee Constitution frames the issue in these terms:

Sec. 2. The lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property; but the improvements made thereon, and in the possession of the citizens respectively who made, or may rightfully be in possession of them: Provided, that the citizens of the Nation possessing exclusive and indefeasible right to their improvements, as expressed in this article, shall possess no right or power to dispose of their improvements, in any manner whatever, to the United States, individual States, or to individual citizens thereof; and that, whenever any citizen shall remove with his effects out of the limits of this Nation, and become a citizen of any other government, all his rights and privileges as a citizen of this Nation shall cease: Provided, nevertheless, That the National Council shall have power to re-admit, by law, to all the rights of citizenship, any such person or persons who may, at any time, desire to return to the Nation, on memorializing the National Council for such readmission.

Communal property systems describe ownership as belonging to the entire social and political unit, while corporate systems describe ownership as being attached to an identifiable group with an identifiable responsible individual. The Roman property law was based on such a corporate system.

Different societies may have different theories of property for differing types of ownership. Pauline Peters argued that property systems are not isolable from the social fabric, and notions of property may not be stated as such, but instead may be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among Polynesian peoples.

Property in philosophy

In medieval and Renaissance Europe the term "property" essentially referred to land. Much rethinking was necessary in order for land to come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce, the breakdown of efforts to prohibit interest (so-called "usury"), and the development of centralized national monarchies.

Ancient philosophy

Aristotle, in Politics, advocates "private property." In one of the first known expositions of tragedy of the commons he says, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." In addition, he says when property is common there are natural problems that arise due to differences in labor: "If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property." (Politics, 1261b34)

Pre-industrial English philosophy

Thomas Hobbes 1600s

The principal writings of Thomas Hobbes appeared between 1640 and 1651—during and immediately following the war between forces loyal to King Charles I and those loyal to Parliament. In his own words, Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? In that unsettled time and place it perhaps was natural that he would conclude: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such.

James Harrington 1600s

A contemporary of Hobbes, James Harrington, reacted differently to the same tumult; he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of Oceana, he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of property. He said that the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation's property, with crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested.

In later years, the ranks of Harrington's admirers would include American revolutionary and founder John Adams.

Robert Filmer 1600s

Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir Robert Filmer, reached conclusions much like Hobbes', but through Biblical exegesis. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are but children, whether obedient or unruly, and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his children—his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure.

John Locke 1600s

In the following generation, John Locke sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced constitution in which the monarch would have a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer's views essentially require that the Stuart family be uniquely descended from the patriarchs of the Bible, and since even in the late seventeenth century that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's views in his First Treatise on Civil Government, freeing him to set out his own views in the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world, the unhappy residents of which create a social contract. They would, he allowed, create a monarchy, but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature.

"To this end" he wrote, meaning the end of their own long life and peace, "it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of nature."

Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, though, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do.

"It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..."

Note that both "persons and estates" are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, inclusive of the "power and will of a legislator." In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey.

To explain the ownership of property Locke advanced a labor theory of property.

William Blackstone 1700s

In the 1760s, William Blackstone sought to codify the English common law. In his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England he wrote that "every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny."

How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by eminent domain, and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of trespass and nuisance. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn't reasonable to expect him to recognize the King's agents in the dark.

David Hume 1700s

In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far, David Hume lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to Paris to work at the British embassy.

In contrast, one might think, to his outrage-generating works on religion and his skeptical views in epistemology, Hume's views on law and property were quite conservative.

He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. "In general," he wrote, "it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves." Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: "A regard for liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established government."

These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as legal positivism. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them. He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to avarice as "the spur of industry," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair."

Critique and response

By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods in general. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned. Furthermore, the labor theory of value popularized by classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo were utilized by a new ideology called socialism to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern.

Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property

Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the Bourbon Restoration. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: "firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles." (The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer

Comte, as Proudhon would later do, rejected Roman legal tradition with its toleration of slavery. He posited a communal "national" property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient hunter-gatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the Lockean proviso - there was "still enough, and as good left." Comte's analysis would be used by later theorists in response to the socialist critique on property.

Pierre Proudhon - property is theft

In his treatise What is Property?(1849), Proudhon answers with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he sees two conceivable types of property, de jure property and de facto property, and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's fundamental premise is that equality of condition is the essence of justice. "By this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which has been invented in behalf of property, whatever it may be, always and of necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property."[2] But unlike the statist socialists of his time, Proudhon's solution is not to give each person an equal amount of property, but to deny the validity of legal property in natural resources altogether.

His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Like most theorists of his time, both capitalist and socialist, he assumed the labor theory of value to be correct. Thus, Proudhon reasoned, any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own.

Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Marx.

Frédéric Bastiat - property is value

Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850).[3] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."

Strongly disputing Proudhon's equality-based argument, Bastiat theorizes that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g. 100 liters of wheat decreases over time, thus amounting to "gratis" satisfaction. Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of mankind. "Since the human race started from the point of greatest poverty, that is, from the point where there were the most obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that all that has been gained from one era to the next has been due to the spirit of property."

This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that private property will ever totally disappear. This is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

Contemporary views

Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that human individuals enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts, there are two views about John Locke. On the one hand there are ardent Locke admirers, such as William W. Hutt (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the "quintessence of individualism." On the other hand, there are those such as Richard Pipes who think that Locke's arguments are weak, and that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marked a regression because it rested on the concept of Natural Law" rather than upon Harrington's sociological framework.

Hernando de Soto has argued that an important characteristic of capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. These property rights and the whole formal system of property make possible:

  • Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets;
  • Clear, provable, and protectable ownership;
  • The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole;
  • Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions;
  • More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against risk;
  • Greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans;
  • Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets;
  • Increased fungibility, standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities;
  • Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of shifting agriculture practices.

All of the above enhance economic growth.[4]

Types of property

This sign declaring a parking lot to be "private property" illustrates one method of identifying and protecting property. Note the citations to legal statutes.

Most legal systems distinguish different types (immovable property, estate in land, real estate, real property) of property, especially between land and all other forms of property - goods and chattels, movable property or personal property. They often distinguish tangible and intangible property (see below).

One categorization scheme specifies three species of property: land, improvements (immovable man made things) and personal property (movable man made things)

In common law, real property (immovable property) is the combination of interests in land and improvements thereto and personal property is interest in movable property.

Later, with the development of more complex forms of non-tangible property, personal property was divided into tangible property (such as cars, clothing, animals) and intangible or abstract property (e.g. financial instruments such as stocks and bonds, etc.), which includes intellectual property (patents, copyrights, and trademarks).

What can be property?

The two major justifications given for original property, or homesteading, are effort and scarcity. John Locke emphasized effort, "mixing your labor" with an object, or clearing and cultivating virgin land. Benjamin Tucker preferred to look at the telos of property, i.e. What is the purpose of property? His answer: to solve the scarcity problem. Only when items are relatively scarce with respect to people's desires do they become property.[5] For example, hunter-gatherers did not consider land to be property, since there was no shortage of land. Agrarian societies later made arable land property, as it was scarce. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it. These two justifications lead to different conclusions on what can be property. Intellectual property - non-corporeal things like ideas, plans, orderings and arrangements (musical compositions, novels, computer programs) - are generally considered valid property to those who support an effort justification, but invalid to those who support a scarcity justification (since they don't have the exclusivity property.) Thus even ardent propertarians may disagree about IP.[6] By either standard, one's body is one's property.

From some anarchist points of view, the validity of property depends on whether the "property right" requires enforcement by the state. Different forms of "property" require different amounts of enforcement: intellectual property requires a great deal of state intervention to enforce, ownership of distant physical property requires quite a lot, ownership of carried objects requires very little, while ownership of one's own body requires absolutely no state intervention.

Many things have existed that did not have an owner, sometimes called the commons. The term "commons," however, is also often used to mean something quite different: "general collective ownership" - i.e. common ownership. Also, the same term is sometimes used by statists to mean government-owned property that the general public is allowed to access. Law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, due to the tragedy of the commons, while critics argue that it leads to the exploitation of those resources for personal gain and that it hinders taking advantage of potential network effects. These arguments have differing validity for different types of "property" -- things which are not scarce are, for instance, not subject to the tragedy of the commons. Some apparent critics actually are advocating general collective ownership rather than ownerlessness.

Things today which do not have owners include: ideas (except for intellectual property), seawater (which is, however, protected by anti-pollution laws), parts of the seafloor (see the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for restrictions), gasses in Earth's atmosphere, animals in the wild (though there may be restrictions on hunting etc. -- and in some legal systems, such as that of New York, they are actually treated as government property), celestial bodies and outer space, and land in Antarctica.

The nature of children under the age of majority is another contested issue here. In ancient societies children were generally considered the property of their parents. Children in most modern societies theoretically own their own bodies -- but they are considered incompetent to exercise their rights, and their parents or "guardians" are given most of the actual rights of control over them.

Questions regarding the nature of ownership of the body also come up in the issue of abortion.

In many ancient legal systems (e.g. early Roman law), religious sites (e.g. temples) were considered property of the God or gods they were devoted to. However, religious pluralism makes it more convenient to have religious sites owned by the religious body that runs them.

Intellectual property and air (airspace, no-fly zone, pollution laws, which can include tradeable emissions rights) can be property in some senses of the word.

Who can be an owner?

Ownership laws may vary widely among countries depending on the nature of the property of interest (e.g. firearms, real property, personal property, animals). In some societies only adult men may own property. In some societies legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and nations (or governments) own property.

References

  1. ^ Understanding Principles of Politics and the State, by John Schrems, PageFree Publishing (2004), page 234

See also

Property giving (legal)

Property taking (legal)

Property taking (illegal)

References

External links and references


Law - Portal
Legal subjects Constitutional and Administrative law | Criminal law | Contract | Tort | Property | Trusts and Equity
Public international law | Conflict of laws | Supranational law

Further disciplines Labour law | Human rights | Procedure | Evidence | Immigration law | Family law | Wills
Commercial law | Corporations law | Intellectual property | Unjust enrichment | Restitution
Tax law | Banking law | Competition law | Consumer protection | Environmental law

Legal systems Common law | Civil law | Religious law | Socialist law | Comparative law

Legal theory History of Law | Philosophy of law | Economic analysis of law | Sociology of law

Legal institutions Judiciary | Legislature | Executive | Military and Police | Bureaucracy | Legal profession | Civil society


 
Rétt hjá Hannesi Hólmsteini Print Senda
föstudagur, 08 september 2006

Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson prófessor og hugmyndafrćđilegur frjálshyggjuráđgjafi skrifađi grein í Wall Street Journal 29. janúar áriđ 2004 og sagđi ţar ađ íslenska ríkisstjórnin hefđi fylgt róttćkri og yfirgripsmikilli frjálshyggjustefnu í anda ţess sem var í tíđ Thatchers í Bretlandi og Pinochets í Chile. Auk ţess sem stjórnarstefnan vćri spegilmynd frjálshyggjubyltingarinnar á Nýja Sjálandi. Stjórnarstefna Sjálfstćđisflokks og Framsóknarflokks hafi sem sagt veriđ róttćk hćgri stefna.
“Much of the credit goes to Prime Minister David Oddson”, sagđi prófessorinn í grein sinni.

Hannes Hólmsteinn er ánćgđur međ ţessa stefnu og kennir hana viđ kraftaverk í blađagrein sinni. Enda máliđ skyld honum ţar eđ hann er helsti hugmyndafrćđingur stćrsta stjórnmálaflokks landsins.

Ţetta er vafalaust rétt greining hjá prófessor Hannesi Hólmsteini og vandalaust fyrir hugsandi menn ađ gangast viđ ţví, ađ einmitt svona hafi ţetta veriđ síđust 12 ár eđa svo; róttćk og yfirgripsmikil frjálshyggjustefna sem jađri viđ kraftaverk. Allir ćttu ađ venja sig ađ horfast í augu viđ veruleikann eins og hann er.

Í kveđjurćđu sinni á landsfundi Framsóknarflokksins gaf Halldór Ásgrímsson ríkisstjórn Sjálfstćđisflokks og Framsóknarflokks heitiđ “velferđarstjórn”.

Í Evrópu ađ minnsta kosti er venjulega átt viđ ađ velferđarstjórnir tengist hóflegum vinstri- eđa miđjustjórnmálum. Dómur Halldórs um eigin störf virđist eitthvađ á skjön viđ almenna málnotkun í evrópskum stjórnmálum. Kannski var erfitt fyrir Halldór ađ viđurkenna ţennan kalda veruleika sem Hannes Hólmsteinn lýsti í Wall Street Journal, ađ hann og Framsóknarflokkurinn hefđu fylgt róttćkri og yfirgripsmikilli frjálshyggjustefnu.

Ţađ er algerlega í samrćmi viđ skilning Hannesar Hólmsteins, ađ í skattamálum hefur ríkisstjórnin til dćmis fylgt einni róttćkustu hćgri stefnu sem sést hefur á Vesturlöndum síđustu tíu árin eđa svo. Gliđnunin milli hárra og lágra tekna er meiri en sést hefur í seinni tíđ  međal ríkustu Evrópulandanna ef marka má talnagögn Stefáns Ólafssonar prófessors.  Ríkisstjórnir sem kenna sig viđ velferđarstjórnmál draga almennt úr ójöfnuđi en auka hann ekki.

Ríkisstjórnin hefur búiđ fyrirtćkjaeigendum, stóreignafólki og hátekjufólki einskonar draumaumhverfi enda hafa kjör slíkra hópa batnađ langt umfram kjör almennings. Á sama tíma hafa eldri borgarar og öryrkjar ekki haldiđ í viđ kjaraţróunina á vinnumarkađi. Barnafjölskyldur hafa nú minni vaxta- og barnabćtur en í byrjun tíunda áratugarins.

Einkavćđing, róttćk markađsvćđing, skattalćkkun hjá hátekjufólki og fyrirtćkjum, ađhald í velferđarmálum, aukin ţjónustu- eđa notendagjöld í heilbrigđisţjónustu og skólum auk vaxandi ójafnađar eru hreinlega einkenni hćgri stjórnmála. Ţar standa menn gegn ţví ađ nota skattakerfiđ til ţess ađ jafna tekjuskiptinguna. Ţetta er í rauninni ekkert feimnismál og ríkisstjórnin á ađ kannast viđ ţetta á heiđarlegan hátt. Og svo mikiđ er víst, ađ á flokksţingi Framsóknarflokksins var merkimiđinn “velferđarstjórnmál”, sem fráfarandi formađur setti á stjórnarsamstarfiđ, villandi svo ekki sé meira sagt.

Menn geta leikiđ sér međ ađra merkimiđa sem vísa til mikilvćgra atriđa í ţessu samstarfi á undanförnum árum. Vaxandi ójöfnuđur, velferđ hinna betur megandi, hernađur gegn Írak, ítrekuđ átök viđ öryrkja og vanefndir gagnvart eldri borgurum. En ţetta er óţarft. Ţetta er róttćk hćgristjórn eins og Hannes Hólmsteinn mundi segja, eđa “ bara hćgri stjórn, eins og Gylfi Arnbjörnsson framkvćmdastjóri ASÍ sagđi hér á Útvarpi Sögu í vikunni.

Valkostir kjósenda nćsta vor eru býsna skýrir ţegar grannt er skođađ. Sumir telja ţessa stefnu fína og ađrir ekki. En ţađ er forvitnilegt ađ verđa vitni ađ ţví ţessa dagana ađ róttćka og yfirgripsmikla frjálshyggjustefnan – eins og Hannes Hólmsteinn lýsir henni – er ađ skýrast fyrir Framsóknarmönnum ţessa lands.  Núna, ţegar ţess er skammt ađ bíđa ađ kjósendur  kveđi  upp sinn dóm, er ţađ sem Framsóknarmenn átti sig á ţví ađ allt í einu á ţví ađ ţeir hafa týnt auđkennum sínum. Ţeir hafi ekki lengur neina sjálfstćđa tilveru eđa sjálfsmynd. Enda er hún löngu samofin ţeim stjórnmálum sem Hannes Hómsteinn lýsti svo vel í Wall Street Journal í lok janúar 2004.

Á landsfundi Framsóknarflokksins á dögunum var Halldór Ásgrímsson ţví áreiđanlega ađ lýsa ţví, hvernig hann vildi eđa óskađi sér ađ íslenskur veruleiki vćri međan Hannes Hólmsteinn lýsti honum í Wall Street Journal einsog hann er.

Morgunútvarpiđ 8 september 2006

 




 

From Wikipedia (FW)

Tragedy of the commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good.

The term derives originally from a parable published by William Forster Lloyd in his 1833 book on population.

It was then popularized and extended by Garrett Hardin in his 1968 Science essay "The Tragedy of the Commons".[1]

However, the theory itself is as old as Aristotle who said: "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it".[2]

Contents

[hide]

Introduction

The parable demonstrates how free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, each of which is motivated to maximise his or her own use of the resource, while the costs of exploitation are distributed between all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).

Like William Lloyd and Thomas Malthus before him, Hardin was primarily interested in population and especially the problem of human population growth. In his essay he also focused more widely on the use of limited resources such as the atmosphere and oceans, as well as pointing out the "negative commons" of pollution (i.e. instead of dealing with the deliberate privatisation of a positive resource, a "negative commons" deals with the deliberate commonisation of a negative cost, pollution).

As a metaphor, the "Tragedy of the commons" should not be taken too literally as defining a concept.

The phrase is shorthand for a phenomenon, not an accurate description of it. The "tragedy" should not be seen as tragic in the conventional sense, nor must it be taken as condemnation of the processes that are ascribed to it.

Similarly, Hardin's use of "commons" has frequently been misunderstood, leading Hardin to later remark that he should have titled his work, "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons".

The "Tragedy of the Commons" has particular relevance in explaining behaviour in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, game theory and sociology. Some also see it as an example of emergent behaviour, with the "tragedy" the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system.

Garrett Hardin's essay

At the beginning of his essay, Hardin draws attention to problems that cannot be solved by technical means (i.e. as opposed to those problems with solutions that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality").

Hardin contends that this class of problems includes those raised by human population growth and the use of the Earth's natural resources.

To make the case for "no technical solutions", Hardin notes the limits placed on the availability of energy (and material resources) on Earth, and also the consequences of these limits for "quality of life".

To maximize population, one needs to minimize resources spent on anything other than simple survival
, and vice versa.

Consequently, he concludes that there is no foreseeable technical solution to increasing both human populations and their standard of living on a finite planet.

From this point, Hardin switches to non-technical or resource management solutions to population and resource problems.

As a means of illustrating these, he introduces a hypothetical example of a pasture shared by local herders. The herders are assumed to wish to maximise their yield, and so will increase their herd size whenever possible. The utility of each additional animal has both a positive and negative component:

  • Positive : the herder receives all of the proceeds from each additional animal
  • Negative : the pasture is slightly degraded by each additional animal

Crucially, the division of these components is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared between all herders using the pasture.

Consequently, for an individual herder weighing up these utilities, the rational course of action is to add an extra animal. And another, and another. However, since all herders reach the same conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to an individual than the distributed cost is. The overgrazing cost here is an example of an externality.

Because this sequence of events follows predictably from the behaviour of the individuals concerned, Hardin describes it as a tragedy: "the remorseless working of things" (in the sense described by the philosopher Alfred Whitehead). As such, it illustrates how "invisible hand" (laissez-faire) approaches to resource problems need not always provide the expected optimal solution. In Hardin's hypothetical commons, the actions of self-interested individuals do not promote the public good.

In the course of his essay, Hardin develops the theme, drawing in examples of latter day "commons", such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, National Parks, advertising and even parking meters. A major theme running throughout the essay is the growth of human populations, with the Earth's resources being a general commons (given that it concerns the addition of extra "animals", it is the closest to his original analogy).

The essay also addresses potential management solutions to commons problems including: privatization; polluter pays; regulation. Keeping with his original pasture analogy, Hardin categorises these as effectively the "enclosure" of commons, and notes a historical progression from the use of all resources as commons (unregulated access to all) to systems in which commons are "enclosed" and subject to differing methods of regulated use (access prohibited or controlled). Hardin argues against the reliance on conscience as a means of policing commons, suggesting that this favours selfish individuals over those more far-sighted.

In the context of avoiding over-exploitation of commons, Hardin concludes by restating Hegel's maxim (which was actually written by Engels), "Freedom is the recognition of necessity". He suggests that "freedom", if interpreted narrowly as simply the freedom to do as one pleases, completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognising resources as commons in the first place, and by recognising that, as such, they require management, Hardin believes that "we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms".

Aside from its subject matter (resource use), the essay is notable (at least in modern scientific circles) for explicitly dealing with issues of morality, and doing so in one of the scientific community's premier journals, Science. Indeed, the subtitle for the essay is "The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality".

Controversy

Even today Hardin's essay, the Tragedy of the Commons is a source of controversy. Some of this stems from disagreement about whether individuals will always behave in the selfish fashion posited by Hardin (see discussion below).

More significantly, controversy has been fuelled by the "application" of Hardin's ideas to real situations. In particular, some authorities have read Hardin's work as specifically advocating the privatisation of commonly owned resources. Consequently, resources that have traditionally been managed communally by local organisations have been enclosed or privatised. Ostensibly this serves to "protect" such resources, but it ignores the pre-existing management, often unfairly appropriating resources and alienating indigenous (and frequently poor) populations. As Hardin's essay focuses on resources that are fundamentally unmanaged, rather than communally managed, this application of his ideas is misplaced. Ironically, given his original hypothetical example, this misunderstanding of Hardin's ideas is often applied to grazing lands.

More generally, Hardin made it very clear that usage of public property could be controlled in a number of different ways to stop or limit over-usage. His advocacy of clearly defined property rights has frequently been misread as an argument for privatization, or private property, per se. The opposite situation to a tragedy of the commons is sometimes referred to as a tragedy of the anticommons: a situation where rational individuals (acting separately) collectively waste a given resource by under-utilizing it.

Historical "commons"

Hardin's essay introduces a hypothetical pasture as an analogy for "commons" in general. In this analogy, herders using the pasture do so on an individualistic basis, with no community management or oversight. However, actual historical commons were not public land and most were not open to the access of all — the public at large had very limited rights (e.g. passing drovers could lease grazing for "thistle rent"). Only those locals who were "commoners" had access to a bundle of rights; each commoner then had an interest in his own rights, but the common itself was not property.

These bundles of rights could not be traded or otherwise disposed of, but they applied in a medieval culture that recognised inalienable property (e.g. entailed inheritances), so under this system the bundles of rights were considered property. In a traditional English village these rights provided commoners with rights of grazing, gathering fuel wood non-destructively "by hook or by crook", etc. from anywhere on the common. (The form "commons" is plural, and refers to the whole group of individual pieces of common land subject to these effects).

Historically, most English commons were reserved for their own commoners (meaning members of that parish), whose use was restricted in various ways according to local custom. In response to overgrazing, for example, a common would be "stinted", that is, a limit would be put on the number of animals each commoner was allowed to graze. This stint might be related to the ownership of a commonable cottage, or to the amount of land owned in the open fields. These regulations were responsive to demographic and economic pressure; rather than let the commons be degraded, access was usually restricted even further. By the time of parliamentary enclosure, in many manors in southern England few labourers and poorer people held common grazing rights; enclosure, however, did have an impact on smaller landholders who supported their farming through use of common grazing and other resources. While historians continue to debate the significance and impact of enclosure on small landholders and labouring people in England, they agree that there is no evidence that commonland use was itself unsustainable.[citation needed]

Modern solutions to the "tragedy"

Articulating solutions to the tragedy of the commons is one of the main problems of political philosophy. Many such solutions involve enforcement of conservation measures by an authority, which may be an outside agency or selected by the resource users themselves, who agree to cooperate to conserve the resource. Another frequently-proposed solution is to convert each common into private property, giving the owner of each an incentive to enforce its sustainability. Effectively, this is what took place in the English "Enclosure of the Commons." Increasingly, many agrarian studies scholars advocate studying traditional commons management systems, to understand how common resources can be protected without alienating those whose livelihoods depend upon them.

The idea of dividing the commons into private parcels is often advocated by classical liberals, who tend to argue that this division should be done according to the Lockean principle of homesteading [1] [2] [3]. This consists of allowing individuals to acquire property rights in a previously unowned resource by using it, on a "first come first served" basis [4].

The Coast Salish managed their natural resources in a place-based system where families were responsible for looking after a place and its resources [5]. Access to food was the major source of wealth and the empowerment of generosity was highly valued so it made sense for them to take care of the resources.

A popular solution to the problem is also the "Coasian" one, where the individuals using the commons make payments to one another in exchange for not overusing the resource.

In Hardin's essay, he proposed that the solution to the problem of overpopulation must be based on "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" and result in "relinquishing the freedom to breed." Hardin discussed this topic further in a 1979 book, Managing the Commons, co-written with John A. Baden [6]. He framed this prescription in terms of needing to restrict the "reproductive right" in order to safeguard all other rights. Only one large country has adopted this policy, the People's Republic of China. In the essay, Hardin had rejected education as an effective means of stemming population growth. Since that time, it has been shown that increased educational and economic opportunities for women correlates well with reduced birthrates in most countries, as does economic growth in general. Indeed, governments of some developed countries (e.g. Japan) are now concerned with raising rather than lowering the birthrate.

Application to evolutionary biology

The "tragedy of the commons" features highly in the field of evolutionary biology [7]. The idea comes from the theory that individuals will always behave selfishly in order to maximise their fitness. Mostly, it has been applied to theories of social evolution, where it was widely held that altruism could not have evolved because the 'tragedy of the commons' would always favour selfish individuals; whose genes for selfish behaviour would therefore come to predominate. This contradicted observed reality, and was therefore a significant conceptual problem. The problem was eventually solved by models of possible mechanisms that can give rise to 'Reciprocal altruism', leading to ideas like the 'Tit for tat' rule (which states that it is beneficial to do unto others as they have done unto you). These models freed evolutionary theory from the limitations imposed by the concept of 'Inclusive fitness', a previous explanation for altruism, which proposed that organisms help others only to the extent that by doing so they increase the probability of passing shared genes to the next generation.

It has also been applied to other areas of sociobiology and behavioral ecology, such as in the evolution of virulence or sexual conflict, where males may fatally harm females when competing for matings [8]. It is also widely used in studies of social insects, where scientists wish to understand why insect workers do not undermine the "common good" by laying eggs of their own and causing a breakdown of the society.

The idea of evolutionary suicide, where adaptation at the level of the individual causes the whole species or population to be driven extinct, can be seen as an extreme form of an evolutionary tragedy of the commons.

Modern commons

Modern commons (some alluded to by Hardin) and some examples of potential and actual tragedies they have suffered include:

Notes

  1. ^ Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162, 1243-1248
  2. ^ Aristotle, Politics 1261b34

See also

External links and references

Material from WIKIPEDIA:  "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license"   http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html    See also Wikipedia   Creative Commons    Open Access Publishing    Open Content   Open Source  E-Books

 

 

Viđskipti | mbl.is | 15.3.2007 | 15:43

Fitch lćkkar lánshćfismat ríkissjóđs Íslands í A+/AA+

Bloggađ um fréttina



Matsfyrirtćkiđ Fitch Ratings greindi frá ţví í dag ađ ţađ hefđi lćkkađ lánshćfiseinkunnir ríkissjóđs Íslands í erlendri og innlendri mynt í A+ og AA+ úr AA- og AAA. Horfur eru stöđugar fyrir báđar einkunnir.

Um leiđ var lánshćfiseinkunnin fyrir skammtímaskuldbindingar í erlendri mynt lćkkuđ í F1 úr F1+ og landseinkunnin lćkkuđ í AA- úr AA, ađ ţví er segir í fréttatilkynningu frá Seđlabanka Íslands. Gengi íslensku krónunnar hefur lćkkađ um rúmlega 1% í dag.

Stađa Íslands gagnvart útlöndum hefur versnađ verulega

„Lćkkunin tekur miđ af nýjustu gögnum um greiđslujöfnuđ og hreina erlenda stöđu ţjóđarbúsins sem benda til ţess ađ stađa Íslands gagnvart útlöndum hafi versnađ verulega, en ţađ eykur á áhyggjur um sjálfbćrni erlendu skuldastöđunnar,” segir Paul Rawkings, sérfrćđingur Fitch Ratings í London í málefnum Íslands.

Stóraukin hrein fjármagnsgjöld til útlanda – ađallega í formi erlendra vaxtagreiđslna – hafa átt sinn ţátt í meiri viđskipahalla en áđur hefur mćlst, en hann nam 27% af landsframleiđslu 2006 samanboriđ viđ 16,3% áriđ 2005.

Á sama tíma jukust hreinar erlendar skuldir í rúm 200% af landsframleiđslu og 429% af útflutningstekjum
, en til samanburđar hafđi matsfyrirtćkiđ spáđ ađ ţessi hlutföll yrđu 161% og 323%," samkvćmt tilkynningu sem Seđlabankinn hefur unniđ upp úr tilkynningu frá Fitch.

Aukin hćtta á harđri lendingu

„Svo há hlutföll endurspegla mjög skuldsett hagkerfi sem er illa búiđ undir aukna áhćttufćlni á alţjóđamörkuđum og/eđa hćrra alţjóđlegt vaxtastig”, segir Rawkins.

„Ennfremur er erfiđara ađ gera ráđ fyrir mildri ađlögun hagkerfisins í ljósi vaxandi viđskiptahalla á árinu 2006”. Efnahagsstefnan gefur ađhaldi í ríkisfjármálum lítinn gaum á kosningaári ţar sem afgangur hins opinbera mun minnka í 1,1% af landsframleiđslu á árinu 2007 úr 5,3% á árinu 2006, ţannig ađ ađlögunarbyrđin mun hvíla ađ mestu á peningastefnunni í formi ć hćrri vaxta. Í ljósi ţessa telur matsfyrirtćkiđ Fitch aukna hćttu á „harđri lendingu” sem fćli í sér mikinn og langvarandi samdrátt í eftirspurn í einkageiranum.

Fitch segir ađ ţar sem vaxtagreiđslur svari nú til helmings viđskiptahallans verđi ađlögunin sem ţarf til ađ ná jafnvćgi á milli erlendra afborgana og útflutningstekna meira en nokkurn tíma áđur í sögu landsins.

Hér er um ađ rćđa viđsnúning á grunnjöfnuđi (ţ.e. án vaxta) sem nćmi 15% af landsframleiđslu. Fáum löndum hefur tekist ađ leiđrétta slíkt ójafnvćgi án ţess ađ ganga í gegnum tímabil lítils eđa neikvćđs hagvaxtar.

Matsfyrirtćkiđ reiknar međ ađ viđskiptahallinn verđi áfram yfir tíu af hundrađi um nokkurt skeiđ.

Hrein neikvćđ stađa Íslands viđ útlönd jókst í 119% af VLF áriđ 2006 úr 84% áriđ 2005 o
g er hlutfalliđ nú međ ţví hćsta međal ríkja sem hafa lánshćfiseinkunn í flokki AA/ AAA.

Vaxandi greiđslubyrđi af erlendum skuldbindingum miđađ viđ tekjur af erlendum eignum eykur einnig áhyggjur af hversu lengi frekari erlend skuldasöfnun, einkum hjá íslenskum bönkum, getur haldiđ áfram ađ fjármagna erlendar fjárfestingar.

Ţrátt fyrir horfur um slakari ríkisfjármálastefnu segir Fitch ađ Ísland haldi yfirburđastöđu sinni í ríkisfjármálum og ţetta réttlćti ađ halda ţriggja ţrepa mismun á einkunn á milli skuldbindinga í innlendri og erlendri mynt.

Samt sem áđur varar matsfyrirtćkiđ viđ ţví ađ lönd međ ađ ţví er virđist sterka stöđu opinbera fjármála geti ekki leyft sér ađ líta framhjá ójafnvćgi sem stafar frá einkageiranum og frá ört vaxandi hreinni erlendri skuldastöđu, einkum ţegar bankar eru ađalskuldarar.

Fitch lítur ţađ jákvćđum augum ađ íslenskir bankar hafa brugđist viđ áhyggjum af hve mikill hluti erlendra skulda gjaldfellur áriđ 2007. Ţó er bent á ađ hreinar erlendar skuldbindingar ţeirra haldist háar eđa í 168% af landsframleiđslu á sama tíma og innlent efnahagsumhverfi gćti versnađ ef lendingin verđur hörđ.

Fitch viđurkennir ađ Ísland býr yfir styrk á ákveđnum sviđum sem bersýnilega skilur ţađ frá öđrum ríkjum međ lánshćfiseinkunina A, svo sem ţjóđartekjur á mann sem nema 52.000 Bandaríkjadölum, hágćđa stjórnkerfi (?) og gegnsćtt stofnanaumhverfi. (?)

Ţessir ţćttir munu áfram styđja viđ lánshćfismat ríkisins. Sem stendur er Fitch engu ađ síđur ţeirrar skođunar ađ ţessir eiginleikar vegi ekki upp efnahagslegt ójafnvćgi og áhrif ţess á lánstraust.

Lykillinn ađ framtíđarbreytingum á lánshćfismatinu felst í ţví hvernig dregur úr ójafnvćginu, ađ ţví er segir í tilkynningu Fitch.