Menu
header photo

 The Social Anarchist  Party 

 the party promoting Property Rights

Ownership

Most people only understand public and private ownership. This is aided and abetted by a media and political environment that benefits from this bogus left/right distinction. Not that there is not a left and right form of ownership, but these extremes are simply propaganda pieces with little value other than to divide left from right.

The most basic and elemental form of ownership is personal ownership. This is our ownership of what we use as private persons in our daily lives. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the homes we live in are personally owned.

Capitalists have extended this personal form of ownership into the commercial or business sphere. Amazon is viewed as a personally owned asset in the same way as your lunch is.

This is perverse to say the least.

So far as capitalism is concerned capital is consider the results of delayed gratification. Instead of eating one’s lunch, one saves the money and after a time invests the saved-up sum in a business selling sandwiches. This is called making money work for you. Few people can see anything wrong with this and those that do probably do not understand what precisely is wrong.

We do see a clear distinction however between the two forms of ownership. In one case the ownership is for immediate consumption and in the other the ownership is saved and ultimately invested. The latter is considered a demonstration of greater maturity and self-control.

This distinction is lost on capitalist. Their focus is on the ownership of wealth by the nation. This is called socialism, but socialism has become a complicated term with several different meanings. Originally it meant the ownership of the means of production by the people. But this was never technically described and so over time it became synonymous with communism. Communism is publicly owned resources with each person doing what they can and getting what they need. Nationalization means much the same thing but tends to be used in connection with individual companies, such as the nationalization of a power plant.

What is ownership? On what is it based? To listen to capitalist the ownership of capital is based on personal ownership and is an extension of it. This is a mistake partly noted in the two purposes to which private enterprise ownership is put and the nature of personal ownership. But we need to make this line of demarcation even more distinct. Even though capital maybe derived from delayed consumption this is not a prerequisite and is certainly becoming less and less likely due to the cost of starting a business and the difficulty of saving sufficient funds to start a business.

Personal ownership is directed towards immediate needs. We notice that we cannot challenge this sort of ownership without producing incongruities. Logic tells us that personal ownership is just and not easily challenged. We see some justice in any capital saved from delayed gratification belongs to the one who underwent the deprivation. Does this entitle him to invest it in income producing property? This is where the questions arise. If we save up to purchase a house or care, there are no questions raised. If we save up to buy interest bearing bonds, then moral issues seem to percolate out of the transaction itself.

The problem arises because we did not accurately analyze personal ownership. We assumed because these goods and services are being used to support human life and we all want to live, the individual must have a right to his life and that which enables him to live. But are these assumptions based on anything more than wishful thinking?

If I have a right to a meal where do I get the right and more importantly, where do I get the meal?

Do I have a spiritual right to food just because I exist and if I do where could such a right originate? If the world is secular, that is founded 100% in physical laws and factors then what are principles and how could any right exist, especially my right to eat something else simply because of my existence that I wish to maintain.

Materialism cannot provide us with any right, including a right to life and a right to food or a right to possess goods and services.

Some may assert our right of ownership is bequeathed to us by governments but where did they get this right from? An agency cannot assign a right they do not themselves, have.

If we proceed from a Christian standpoint and assume God created us and all things we can easily understand that God as Creator would have ownership rights over what he Created. This is natural and logical to us. Because God is the Creator and has total ownership rights He would of necessity have the right to assign ownership rights to that which he created to exercise care over His creation.

Christians as the assigned caretakers of the planet are the natural owners of the planet.

At the same time, we can assume that abrogating one’s rights by a failure to exercise responsibility could and would result in the re-assignment of ownership, this prediction is found in the stories of Israel and in observing the loss of lands of some peoples who failed to exercise responsibility over what they were given.

Our rights of ownership under God are always local. As the property of God we have a Right given by necessity and Divine authority to what we need to carry out our tasks. This right of payment is enshrined in Scripture and logical necessity. The worker is worthy of his wages and it makes no sense to muzzle the ox because the one doing the work has to feed.

But personal ownership was never the problem. We have shifted the foundation and justification from a right to life which cannot be substantiated in either the secular or Christian belief systems, to a right to what is earned. By being creatures of God Created for the joy of God we are entitled to an individual share of the things of God.

When we take a stone a create an arrowhead and use this to hunt with the arrowhead is a personal possession. But when we use this arrowhead to obtain a bowl made by another person we engage in trade. We know instinctively we have crossed a line but we do not comprehend what has been done.

People find it easier to protest against an individual gaining authority over a waterfall or tract of old growth forest than they do about a child selling lemonade though the two situations are the same, separated only by the degree of wrong done.

Why ought I to be able to profit from the energy contained in a waterfall. Lets assume the energy is infinite for all intents and purposes. For the simple luck of being first to see it or the fortunate circumstance of having access to sufficient capital, I am given access to a source of wealth that I had no hand in creating. Now, there are apologists who will say but the investor puts up the money to own the resource but unless he or she also invests in infrastructure the waterfall is not really going to produce any income.  This is true and no one is saying that the investor is not entitled to benefiting from his or her investment, but this still does not include the energy of the water nor the wood of the tree, which we as humans did not create.

Ownership is tied to creation, God created the universe and is its owner. He created us and owns us. He assigned the planet to us, his creation, to care for the planet. We in this sense own the earth and as owners or caretakers are justified in taking out our wages. But this is personal needs use only, not commercial use.

We did not create the stone and ought not to benefit from the stone on a commercial level. As the creator of an arrowhead we do have a right to the value added, but not to the core or original value. This position is referred to as The Labor Theory Of Value. As reasonable as it sounds it has met with technical problems because no one has figured out how to separate original value from added value.

Let’s take a more obvious case. Imagine you cut down a tree. When you return the next day someone has cut this into firewood. You claim the firewood because you cut down the tree and the person who cut the firewood claims it because it was he who cut the tree into firewood. Obviously both claims are in error because both persons added value to the tree but what of the first Creator, the Creator who created the tree? What is His share and how to allow for it?

What if the tree belonged to a third person. Would not the two who cut down the tree and made it into firewood not have to compensate the human owner?

This is where the business model called an Exchange comes in. Exchanges resolves these kinds of issues.

 

For additional information on Exchanges Click Here