of David Friedman
habitual criticism of the private property system is that it is immoral, because it is based on selfishness. That is wrong. Commonly called a selfish attitude by which a person thinks only of itself and does not care about the welfare of others. Being in favor of private property does not mean to promote this attitude, it means only to be aware the fact that different individuals have different purposes and pursue them. Each person is selfish because it only accepts and follows its own perception of reality, their own vision of what is bene.Un 'argument is also wrong because it puts such false alternatives. In any institution, there are essentially only three ways to get someone to help others achieve their goals: love, voluntary exchange, and strength. Love transforms my goal in your. Who loves me wants me to get what I want (unless you think that I am not able to understand what is right for me). So help me willingly, selflessly. But the word "love" is a term too limited. You could also share my view, not because it is my goal, but because in a sense you and I have the same perception of what is good. You could offer to work for my political campaign, not for love, but because he was convinced that my election will be an asset. Of course, we may share the same interests for wholly different reasons. I think I might be just what the country needs, and you me be just what the nation deserves. "The second method of cooperation is trade. I agree to help you achieve your goal if you help me to realize mio.Il third method is the force. You do what I want, or you sparo.L 'love (Or more generally share a common goal) works well, but only for a limited range of problems. It is difficult to know so many people love her so well. Love can be a source of cooperation among small groups for complex issues, like family. It also works between groups, goals for very simple --- so simple that different individuals may find themselves in complete agreement. But for a complex order that involves a large number of people - the production of this book, for example - love will not work. I can not pretend that all those whose cooperation is necessary for me (composers, publishers, booksellers, loggers, mills owners, and a thousand others) I know and love me enough to want to publish this book for my own good. Nor do I expect everyone to agree with my beliefs, so as to see the publication of the book as an objective in itself. I can not even expect them to be eager to read the book and, therefore, willing to help me produce it. Should serve the commercio.Io spend time and energy to produce the manuscript. I get in return, the opportunity to spread my opinion, a bit 'of satisfaction for my ego, and a bit' of money. Who wants to read the book buy it. In turn, disburses money. The publisher and its employees give time, energy and talent required to coordinate it all, get in exchange for money and reputation. The loggers, printers and all others bring their energy and talent and in return earn money. Thousands, perhaps millions, to cooperate with a single goal, while each pursues its objective. Thus, even under private ownership, the first method, the love, it is used wherever possible. Otherwise you need trade. The prosecution of private property to be selfish at first opposed the second method. Implies that the only alternative to the market "selfish" love is "unselfish." But in a system of private ownership, love is already used where possible. No one is prevented from working for free, if you wish. Many people (parents help their children, hospital volunteers, scout leaders) do just that. As people are not willing to do for free if it is not allowed to use the second method, trade, necessarily have to use the third, the strength. Instead of having "selfish" because they are in employment they wish, we will have "generous" that will be done under the threat of the gun. Is not this unjust accusation? The only alternative offered by those who deplore the market as selfish is always the rule [that is inherently coercive, NDM]. In other words, they are selfish to do something for money, so the ghettos should be cleaned by "juvenile delinquents" recruited through a "service of rehabilitation. "Which, in other words, it means that the work should be done by individuals whose alternative is galera.Una second objection often raised against a system of private property is that resources are poorly distributed. A man can starve to death while another has more food than necessary. This is true, but occurs in any system of resource distribution. Anyone who takes a decision could establish one thing that I consider wrong. Of course, you could set up a separate ministry and entrust the task of feeding the hungry and clothe the naked, this does not mean that all those in need will be dressed and fed. At some point someone will have to decide who will or will not help. The political gear, ministries and bureaucracy, they follow their own goals, as well as business people follow their own. If the majority agrees to feed the hungry, the politician may be advantageous to pursue this objective. However, in such a circumstance, the policy is not necessary: \u200b\u200ba good soul, however, give food to the hungry. If the majority is opposed to feeding the hungry, the charitable soul between the minority will continue to feed him --- not the political will. There is no way to give a politician a power to be used exclusively for good. If you decide to give food to someone, to deny it to someone else: the food does not come about. One can cite only one occasion in the course of modern history in peacetime, when most people died of hunger despite the abundance of food. It happened in an economic system in which the decision of who was in need of aid was in the hands of government. A Stalin dictating how much food was needed for the population of Ukraine. What "exceeded" was requisitioned by the Soviet government and exported. During the years 1932 and 1933 several million Ukrainians died of hunger. During those two years, according to data from the Soviets, the Soviet Union exported about one million eight hundred thousand tons of grain. If we assume a large number of starving people say --- --- 8 million wheat that would provide about 2000 calories a day to each of essi.Tuttavia, there is something in 'socialist objection to "improper allocation of resources" capitalist, I can sympathize with the aesthetic, but not in most economici.La of us at heart believes that there is only one way of understanding the good that, ideally, we should all pursue. In an ideal socialist state, centrally planned, all part of a hierarchy that serves the same purpose. If this objective consisted in pursuing the "perfect justice", that society would be much more perfect than it could ever be a capitalist society, where each person has a different and imperfect conception of what is right. Since most of the socialist thinks that a Socialist government will be run by people much like themselves, they believe that this government will pursue the true good --- what they can perceive only imperfectly. Such a solution would certainly be better than a chaotic system in which a variety of different people from a variety of other perceived social forms of property, and waste precious resources to pursue them. Who dreams of a socialist society rarely takes into account the possibility that others, for purposes other than those of the socialists, may be able to impose their own ideas, but rather the contrary. George Orwell is the only exception mente.Una that comes to my third objection to private property is that men are not truly free if they need to use the property of others, for example, to print their views or even to eat and drink. If I do not starve me what you say, such a conception dellla freedoms could be useful for a political philosopher, but not very useful for me.Questa observation is quite correct, but it is equally true, and much more relevant to any system where there is public ownership. It is extremely likely that there will be a sole proprietor of food if the State owns all property, rather than if the same is in the hands of a multiplicity of individuals: there are definitely less government. When divided, the power decreases. If a person has everything needed for my food, it may force me to do anything. If the power is divided among a hundred men, no one can force me to work too hard to eat, and if anyone tries, I can not get anywhere else what I want.
Retrieved from Gear Freedom
0 comments:
Post a Comment