The Assumption That Labor Creates Value and Private Property

Translation of https://dialoogid2.blogspot.com/2026/01/eeldus-et-too-loob-vaartust-ja-eraomand.html from Estonian.

 

The Assumption That Labor Creates Value and Private Property 

Karmo Talts

 

Let's examine at the justification for the Marxist notion that property should belong to workers. It is based on the assumption that value is created by labor. 

Let's examine now whether this assumption necessarily justifies the fact that property should be common. Common property can be justified based on the assumption that value is created by collective labor. 

Let´s examine now what the does assumption that each worker creates value with his own labor justify. Then each worker has the right to the value he has created. 

Let´s examine now one possible view of the origin of private property. In the beginning, the one who has created something with his own labor uses it himself or exchanges it with others. Exploitation arose in one way or another from the unjust appropriation of value belonging to others. One form of exploitation was the overt unjust acquisition of value, either by force or by taking it away when the owner, who had acquired the property in a fair manner, did not look after his property, etc. Another form of exploitation was the covert unjust acquisition of value, where the more cunning party made a bad exchange to the detriment of the less cunning party. 

Let's consider now one possible moral and legal view of private property. The individual has a moral right to the value created by his own labor or acquired in a fair exchange. The law must protect private property thus acquired, provide penalties for unjust means of acquiring property, and provide means for the return of the unjustly acquired value to the individual whose rights to private property have been violated.

Property and Power

Artikli https://dialoogid2.blogspot.com/2025/08/vara-ja-voim.html tõlge

Property and Power 

Karmo Talts 

 

In this work, I examine the relationship between property and power. To do this, I analyze how actions of other individuals can be affected with property, how they influence us do use our property to affect them  whether mutual affecting each ohter with property is fair, how property and political power are related, and finally I focus on how reducing the power that can be achieved with property affects power relations. Let's examine property. In a society where private property exists, property gives power - with the help of money, we can quite easily make other individuals give us something and, even more, we can change their beliefs about who the transferred thing belongs to or make them act for us, either in the short term, as an employee works for us when we pay them or whose employers company we visit as customers, or in the long term, we make them work for us paying them salary. It is sometimes possible to get other people to give us money by using other assets, whether we sell them those assets or offer our assets as collateral for a loan to them, etc. 

Let us now examine the reciprocity of this power. Other individuals, in turn, have the power to use their assets to make us influence them with our assets. A servant who is his own employer and a wage earner have a different kind of power—they can get us to use our assets to influence them simply by being willing to serve us or work for us.* 

Let us now examine whether the reciprocity of this power ensures the fairness of this power. In all these relationships, each party loses what gives them power over the other party. If we look at a purchase transaction, for example, one party loses products that they have owned that they themselves have not used and that may be difficult to resell, while the other party loses money, which in a stable economic situation is easier to exchange for other assets than non-monetary assets. In the case of a purchase transaction, the total assets of the parties come into play. If the parties have unequal assets, then in most transactions the wealthier party loses a negligible part of their assets and therefore a small part of the power that their assets give them. 

Let us now examine the relationship between assets and political power. Legitimate political power is provided by assets only in societies where the financing of politicians is considered legitimate. However, since legitimate power is not the only power, wealthy people can influence politics by both legal and illegal means. 

Let us now examine political ideologies. Existing political ideologies are not innate knowledge, but in order to learn about them, information about them must be obtained. All possible political ideologies have probably not yet been created, so after they are created, they must be introduced to other people, and the current form of political ideologies may not be final, which means that their changed form must also be introduced to those people who knew the previous form of a given ideology. This means that, under conditions of freedom of speech, the property necessary for the dissemination of ideologies provides an indirect legal opportunity to influence politics. 

Finally, we will look at how reducing the power that can be achieved through property would change power relations. Power relations that doesn't are not influenced by property would remain, because of the complexity of society, changing society can create completely new power relations, and reducing the power of wealthy individuals does not in itself mean that a tacit agreement would not be concluded between wealthy people and political power, which leaves wealthy individuals a part of their power if they do not bite the hand of the rulers. 

In this work, I studied the relationship between property and power. I found that we can use property to get other people to provide us with products and services, but this power is reciprocal, because most often the provider of products and services influences us, either directly or indirectly - through paying salaries to service providers, etc. - with their property to buy these products and services. I found that this power does not always work fairly, because in a stable economic situation, money is usually preferable to other, more difficult-to-exchange assets, and wealthier people have more economic power and lose a small part of this power in the event of small property surrender. Regarding the relationship between political power and property, I found that democracy gives wealthy individuals the opportunity to influence politics through property in both corrupt and in legal ways. In addition, the presence of the assets necessary for the spread of ideologies provides an indirect legal opportunity to influence politics under conditions of freedom of speech. Regarding the reduction of power achieved through property, I found that this is not a final panacea for achieving justice, because some power relations depend little on property, the reorganization of society can create new power relations, and rulers can agree with wealthy people on how much their power can be limited in order for them to maintain loyalty to the rulers. 

*A salaried service worker is a link in a chain where their employer indirectly influences us to use our assets to get the service worker to serve us.

Private Property and the Right to Minimal Property

Translation of https://dialoogid2.blogspot.com/2025/08/eraomand-ja-oigus-minimaalsele-omandile.html

Private Property and the Right to Minimal Property 

Karmo Talts 

 

In this work, I examine how much private property an individual is entitled to, what the concept of minimal property would mean, and whether it is possible to ensure that an individual has minimal property. 

The claim that individuals have the right to private property is very abstract. Let us try to make it more concrete. Taking away a part of a person’s assets, no matter how rich he is, is considered a violation of their right to private property. If we do not accept the view that the concept of private property is inconsistent and vague, then we must conclude that the right to private property means the right to any amount of property. Thus, the value of the private property to which an individual is entitled cannot be expressed in absolute numbers, but in percentages – an individual is entitled to one hundred percent of his assets. 

Let us now look at what this means for extremely poor people. If someone has nothing, then one hundred percent of the value of their assets is zero, and their right to private property is not violated by the fact that they have nothing. 

Now let us compare this view with the view that the right to private property can be expressed in absolute terms. If the maximum value of private property to which an individual is entitled can be expressed in absolute terms, this does not in itself mean that the very rich should be deprived of anything. Namely, taking away from them the portion of their assets that exceeds the maximum value of the assets to which an individual is entitled would not violate the rights of the rich, but keeping it would not directly violate anyone's rights either. If, however, the value of the minimum private property to which an individual is entitled can be expressed in absolute terms, then every individual is entitled to assets of at least that value, and assets of that value must be guaranteed to them. 

Let us consider whether it would be possible to guarantee an individual assets of a certain minimum value. Since an individual has the right to use his assets as he wishes, he may lose them as a result of his own actions, and no one else can guarantee his right to assets of minimal value. However, if there were a moment in an individual's life, such as the moment of adulthood, or certain moments - for example, the moment of reaching retirement age could be added to the moment of adulthood - when he must be guaranteed assets of a certain minimal value, then it would be possible to establish the level of minimal assets to which a person is entitled at that moment or at those moments. After the moment when an individual has the right to assets of minimal value, it is no longer a moment when a person must be guaranteed assets of minimal value, and if a person squanders the part of his assets that was guaranteed to him, then it is his personal matter. 

In this work, I examined how much private property an individual is entitled to and the concept of minimal property. I found that in our current concept of private property, the right to private property can be expressed in percentages – both the rich who have a lot and the poor who have nothing have the right to one hundred percent of their private assets. I also found that if the value of the assets to which a person is entitled could be expressed in absolute numbers, It is not mandatory to part of their assets from the rich, although it is permissible to take away the part that exceeds the maximum value of the assets to which the individual is entitled. However, assets of a minimum value should be guaranteed to all people. As to whether this is possible in practice, I found that no one else can permanently guarantee an individual's right to assets of a minimum value, because a person can lose his assets as a result of his own actions. However, it is theoretically possible to guarantee assets of a minimum value for a certain moment or certain moments in an individual's life.