----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
Sam Bostaph wrote:
"...the concept of the theft of something presupposes the concept of property rights in it
as attributable or assigned in some way to someone or some group of someones. Otherwise
the word "theft" would have no referent. The more important question concerns how property
rights are vested and protected--and what constitutes 'theft.'"
Thank you Sam for pointing this out. I am sorry my example of the clash between the pre-
pastoral hunter and the pastoral investor in the cattle did not make it clear.
I think that a central issue in this thread does involve the notion of theft. In the
<purely economic> reconstruction of the Smithian perspective, the pursuit of self-interest
<in a market economy> does not lead to harm to participants. This may simply mean that the
self-interested baker and butcher do not steal from others, but indeed confer benefits,
even though they may not intend to confer benefits.
The trouble is that Smith relies on the benevolent assistance of the "invisible hand" to
dovetail the interests and to deliver the "unintended but beneficial consequences." For
Marx, the invisible hand is a sinister one. It does permit and even facilitate the
capitalist to exploit the laborer. And the hand is not really invisible to Marx. He sees
the deliberate actions of the capitalist
class to institute a systematic exploitation of labor. In place of harmonious self-
regulation of Smith, Marx sees a class struggle between the thieves and their victims.
As theorists, it seems that we must clearly identify two different social instituions.
The Smithian market can, in theory, operate harmoniously. But it cannot do so without the
assuarnce of the state as the guardian and protector. As Sam insists, how property rights
are vested and protected must be made clear.
If a Marxian state were to exist to sanction and protect property rights, it ought to
protect the laborer's property as well. Marx's own theory is that the state should
monopolize all property and override the <capitalist> market and use <political power> to
ensure fair distirbution.
I have trouble with the monopoly part. My personal thinking is that a properly constituted
state should be able to let individuals own their labor and capital, and engage in trade
without fear of exploitation or exclusion. The state should prevent and punish economic
crimes (of theft or fraud or monopoly).
We probably all share Michael Perelman's sentiment when he reports the complaint of the
Nigerian car-jacker. Does a truly Smithian market exist in Nigeria? It is seemingly not a
truly competitive market, but merely a system of plunder and monopoly waiting to be
transformed into a market. The car-jacker is not allowed to compete in the market, because
the competitive market does not exist in Nigeria.
Someday, we must clarify what the market must look like as an institution, vis-a-vis the
state, to make sense of <property> and <theft>. I have some ideas, but this is not the
thread for my ideas.
As historians, we are curators of the properties of others. When are we going to have some
of our own?
Mohammad Gani
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
