Private property, competition,
and the market-mechanism have come to be assumed to be integral to the economic
system of Capitalism. The assumption that this cluster of attributes is
necessary is faulty though, as, for example, the state can own some or all of
the “means of production” (i.e., firms) that are subject to market competition,
especially if privately-owned enterprises also exist. China had a mix of
private and state-owned enterprises compete in several industries when the
state opened the economy to competitive forces setting supply and demand. In
Wisconsin, the Green Bay Packers, an NFL football team, is owned by the
residents of that city, such ownership being Socialism, and yet that team has
competed not only to win, but also in the hiring of players and managers. A
competitive market does not require that the property of the means of
production be privately owned. Even in the case of private ownership of
companies, the widely accepted custom wherein the owners receive the residual
profits after expenses is dogmatic in the sense of being arbitrary.
Alternatively, creditors or employees/managers could receive any excess revenue
after expenses have been paid. In short, Capitalism as it has come to be known
and exercised is more arbitrary than capitalists may realize. Even the
taken-for-granted distinction between public and private property is not as
stark as may be typically supposed. This is no excuse, however, for businesses
that knowingly encroach on public property as if it were their own private
property. A Capitalist economic system predicated on private property may
contain not only the seed of monopoly, as Marx claimed, but also a tendency of
private enterprises to over-reach on the public domain. If so, government has a
responsibility to prune back the overweening tentacles. Two examples make this
point.
The full essay is at "Companies on Public Property."
