 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next Last |
It is claimed by many (principally among the political left), that the exclusiveness of the ownership relationship underlies much of the injustice in the world, and that the social protection of this exclusiveness can result in tyranny and oppression at both the individual and societal levels.
There are many consequences of the idea of ownership, both positive and negative; the 'moderate' view is that a degree of ownership is necessary for the proper operation of society, but that it can also lead to great injustice if taken too far. Needless to say, there are also many people who disagree with this view.
A simple example of an argument against strict ownership is the case where person A owns medicine which would cure an illness that person B suffers from, but person A demands an unjustifiably high price for that medicine, which person B cannot afford. Almost any known practice of morality or system of ethics would say that unless there are very exceptional circumstances, person A should give person B the medicine, or at least lower the price. But ownership allows person A to set any price he or she wishes, or even to flatly refuse to give out any medicine, despite the fact that such refusal would lead to many unnecessary deaths. Indeed, person A can have socially accepted physical force used (by law enforcement officers) in case person B tries to obtain the medicine without consent. It becomes theft, a socially and legally constructed term, that applies even if the only thing "stolen" is knowledge.
Some political philosphers see this inherent ambivalence of the concept of ownership as a microcosm of an unequal world where many people are starving, and where others struggle with the problems of excess. See social justice for more on this class of concern.
At a less extreme level, exclusive ownership tends to reduce the utilisation of capital. For example, in a society favouring exclusive ownership, every house in a neighbourhood may own a lawn mower which they use once a week. In a society which promotes shared use, far fewer lawnmowers could do the same job. On the other hand, exclusive ownership tends to mean that resources are not destroyed through overuse, and capital objects are maintained, since the owner has an interest in their long-term future. (See tragedy of the commons.)
Socialist ideas have influenced the economic systems of most industrialized countries, to varying degrees. In the majority of cases, this has taken the form of introducing a few limited socialist elements into an otherwise capitalist economy, for the purpose of promoting social justice, alleviating or even eliminating poverty, guaranteeing access to education and healthcare for all citizens, etc. Nationalizations have been limited to "the commanding heights" of the economy (e.g. heavy industry) and utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, and so on). The policy of combining a capitalist economy with extensive socialist aspects is known as social democracy.
There have also been a number of countries, usually falling within the category of so-called " communist stateThis article is about one-party states ruled by Communist Parties. For information regarding communism as a form of society, as an ideology advocating that form of society, or as a popular movement, see the main Communism article. In common speech in thes", which have had fully nationalized economies. However, the issue of who actually owned the means of production in those countries remains controversial, because they did not have democratic governments. In the absence of democracy (i.e. when the people have no control over the government), it can be argued that the government forms an elitist oligarchyOligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek - and therefore, any means of production owned by such a government are the de facto private property of the oligarchs, not the public property of the people. For these reasons, as well as many others, a large number of communists (and the vast majority of socialists) usually disavow any connection between 20th century "communists states" (often referred to as " stalinist states") and the kind of socio-economic system they are trying to achieve.
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|