Ownership means having the right and responsibility of deciding what happens with whatever it is that you own. If what you own is capital, you have the 'right and responsibility' to decide how it is used.
Well and good, but it doesn't follow from this that you should be entitled to own all of the fruits of your capital investment, instead of those who supply the labor. It could as easily be set up so that you are entitled to get back your investment and a reasonable percentage in return if the investment succeeds, but have the remaining proceeds go to those who do the work (both creative and grunt work) -- the exact inverse of the way it's set up now. Or something in between. What we treat as fixed, is fixed only if we choose to make it so.That 'deciding' is work, believe or not. Very important work, actually. Granted, many will outsource this work to others - in which case they won't make as much since they'll have to share it with the people helping them decide what to do with it - but they still have to pick someone smart or they'll simply lose their money.
Nevertheless, here we see an illustration of why you have presented a fallacy. Yes, allocation of resources is work -- but that's not why a person owns the goods produced. The person who does that work owns the goods produced IF AND ONLY IF he is the same person who owns the capital. If the decisions are "outsourced," the person making them has no right of ownership.
There is a theory of property ownership that is, or at least used to be, common among libertarians involving improvement of resources. But how could it be clearer that the person who improves a resource is not the owner? Or if he is, he isn't the owner BECAUSE he improved the resource, but for a different reason altogether. The system of property ownership we actually have is radically different from the theoretical base for it that many libertarians (at least used to) believe.
It all comes down to what defines ownership. Sure, small business owners usually work damned hard, but that isn't the reason they own their businesses or the goods/services the businesses produce; they would own all that whether they worked hard or not. And that's as true of the "work" of allocating resources as it is of any other work.
I'm certainly not above fallacy, but not the one you're citing here. The decision of who will own the finished product is negotiated among all parties involved. The most common arrangement is that 'labor' works for set wages, in exchange for granting ownership of the finished product to the investors, or business owners. But it's certainly not the only possible arrangement. Workers can negotiate for a share of the finished product, and often do, but it's no rose garden. In my experience, it can be quite risky. I wouldn't agree to it (as a worker) unless I had tremendous faith in the leadership of the company.
It seems that you are fundamentally opposed to the practice of paying someone else a wage to create something, or provide a service, on your behalf. And I don't understand why you think that's anyone's business beyond those involved. If workers prefer a steady wage to the risk of speculating on the value of the finished product, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that call?
Last edited: