Properti pribadi

Properti pribadi (disebut juga kepemilikan pribadi) adalah sebutan resmi untuk kepemilikan properti oleh badan hukum non-pemerintah.^[1] Properti pribadi dapat dibedakan dengan properti publik, yang dimiliki oleh entitas negara; dan dari properti kolektif (atau koperasi), yang dimiliki oleh sekelompok entitas non-pemerintah.^[2]^[3] Properti pribadi dapat berupa properti personal (barang konsumsi) atau barang modal. Properti pribadi adalah konsep hukum yang didefinisikan dan ditegakkan oleh sistem politik suatu negara.^[4]

Sejarah

Gerbang dengan tanda properti pribadi

Pada abad ke-18, selama Revolusi Industri, filsuf moral dan ekonom Adam Smith (1723-1790), berbeda dengan John Locke, menarik perbedaan antara "hak atas properti" sebagai hak yang diperoleh dengan hak-hak alami. Smith membatasi hak alamiah pada "kebebasan dan kehidupan". Smith juga menarik perhatian pada relasi antara karyawan dan majikan, serta mengidentifikasi bahwa properti dan pemerintahan sipil saling bergantung satu sama lain, mengakui bahwa "keadaan properti selalu bervariasi sejalan dengan bentuk pemerintahan". Smith lebih lanjut berargumen bahwa pemerintahan sipil tidak dapat eksis tanpa properti, karena fungsi utama pemerintahan adalah melindungi kepemilikan properti.^[5]

Pada abad ke-19, ekonom dan filsuf Karl Marx (1818-1883) memberikan analisis yang berpengaruh terhadap perkembangan dan sejarah pembentukan properti serta hubungannya dengan kekuatan produktif teknis pada periode tertentu. Konsepsi Marx atas properti pribadi telah terbukti berpengaruh bagi banyak teori ekonomi yang muncul kemudian serta gerakan politik anarkis, komunis dan sosialis; dan mengarah pada meluasnya keterkaitan antara properti pribadi dengan kapitalisme.

Kritik

Kepemilikan pribadi atas alat-alat produksi adalah elemen utama kapitalisme yang dikritik oleh sosialis. Dalam literatur Marxis, kepemilikan pribadi merujuk pada hubungan sosial di mana pemilik properti mengambil apa pun yang dihasilkan oleh orang atau kelompok lain dengan menggunakan properti tersebut, oleh karenanya kapitalisme bergantung pada kepemilikan pribadi.^[6] Kritik sosialis terhadap kepemilikan pribadi sangat dipengaruhi oleh analisis Marxis tentang bentuk-bentuk properti kapitalisme sebagai bagian dari kritiknya yang lebih luas tentang alienasi (keterasingan) dan eksploitasi di dalam kapitalisme. Walaupun ada banyak ketidaksepakatan di antara kaum sosialis tentang validitas aspek-aspek tertentu dari analisis Marxis, mayoritas sosialis bersimpati dengan pandangan Marx tentang eksploitasi dan alienasi.^[7] Kaum sosialis mengkritik perampasan pribadi atas pendapatan properti karena pendapatan tersebut tidak sesuai dengan pengembalian atas kegiatan produkti apa pun, dan karena dihasilkan oleh kelas pekerja, maka hal itu mewakili eksploitasi. Kelas pemilik properti (kapitalis) hidup dari pendapatan properti pasif yang dihasilkan oleh populasi pekerja berdasarkan klaim mereka atas kepemilikan baik dalam bentuk saham atau ekuitas pribadi. Pengaturan eksploitasi ini terabadikan akibat dari struktur masyarakat kapitalis. Dari perspektif ini, kapitalisme dianggap sebagai sistem kelas yang serupa dengan sistem kelas historis seperti perbudakan dan feodalisme.^[8]

Kepemilikan pribadi juga dikritik atas dasar etika non-Marxis oleh pendukung sosialisme pasar. Menurut ekonom James Yunker, kasus etis untuk sosialisme pasar adalah sebagai berikut: karena pendapatan properti pasif tidak memerlukan tenaga mental atau fisik dari pihak penerima dan karena perampasan yang dilakukan oleh sekelompok kecil pemilik pribadi adalah sumber dari ketidaksetaraan yang luas dalam kapitalisme kontemporer, kepemilikan sosial dalam ekonomi pasar akan menyelesaikan penyebab utama ketidaksetaraan sosial dan penyakit sosial yang menyertainya.^[9] Weyl dan Posner berpendapat bahwa properti pribadi adalah nama lain untuk monopoli dan dapat menghambat efisiensi alokatif. Melalui penggunaan perpajakan dan lelang Vickrey yang dimodifikasi, mereka berpendapat bahwa kepemilikan properti umum parsial adalah cara yang lebih efisien dan adil untuk mengatur ekonomi.^[10]

Lihat pula

Referensi

^ McConnell, Campbell; Brue, Stanley; Flynn, Sean (2009). Economics. Boston: Twayne Publishers. hlm. G-22. ISBN 978-0-07-337569-4.
^ Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (February 28, 2013). The Global Economy and its Economic Systems. South-Western College Pub. hlm. 30. ISBN 978-1285055350. There are three broad forms of property ownership – private, public, and collective (cooperative).
^ "public property". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2009-09-24.
^ Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. hlm. 2132. ISBN 978-1412959636. Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.
^ Property Rights in the History of Economic Thought: From Locke to J.S. Mill, by West, Edwin G. 2001. Property Rights: Cooperation, Conflict, and Law, ed. Terry Lee Anderson and Fred S. McChesney, Princeton University Press, 2003, Ch. 1 (pp. 20–42).
^ "Glossary of Terms". marxists.org. Diakses tanggal 2 March 2017.
^ Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. hlm. 50. ISBN 978-0195088274. Though socialists have disagreed with Marx about how to conceptualize the notion of class, about the dynamics of class societies, and indeed about a whole host of other matters, most socialists seem to be broadly sympathetic to his views about what is wrong with the capitalist (free enterprise) economic system and, by implication, capitalist society ... Marx’s critique attributes basically two systemic evils to capitalism’s economic system: alienation and exploitation.
^ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. hlm. 1135. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. Property income is, by definition, received by virtue of owning property ... Since such income is not an equivalent return for any productive activity, it amounts to an entitlement to a portion of the aggregate output of others’ productive activity. The workforce produces output, but surrenders part of it to people who have nothing directly to do with production. Arguably, this occurs by virtue of a social system to which those in the workforce have never given their full consent, i.e. that of private property. Alternatively, it occurs by virtue of a structure of power to which the workforce is subject: property income is the fruit of exploitation. The fact that it is essential to capitalism makes the latter a class system akin to such other historical cases as slavery and feudalism.
^ The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "From the human point of view, return paid to non-human factors of production is unearned and equivalent to a free gift of nature. It is the personal appropriation of this free gift of nature by a small minority of society under contemporary capitalism which establishes the ethical unworthiness of capitalism and the desirability of a socialist transformation...The employment of capital instruments and natural resources in economic production requires no personal hardship or exertion from any human being. The economic services provided by these factors of production are not corporeally inherent in human beings. The opposite is true of labor services, which can only be provided through the physical and mental activity of human beings...the really grossly exaggerated personal incomes in society are dominated by property income, and this source of inequality would be abrogated by the equalization of property income distribution."
^ Posner, A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl. “Property is Monopoly: Creating a Competitive Market in Uses Through Partial Common Ownership.” Chap. 1 in Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.

Pranala luar

Templat:Properti

[1] McConnell, Campbell; Brue, Stanley; Flynn, Sean (2009). Economics. Boston: Twayne Publishers. hlm. G-22. ISBN 978-0-07-337569-4.

[2] Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (February 28, 2013). The Global Economy and its Economic Systems. South-Western College Pub. hlm. 30. ISBN 978-1285055350. There are three broad forms of property ownership – private, public, and collective (cooperative).

[3] "public property". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2009-09-24.

[4] Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. hlm. 2132. ISBN 978-1412959636. Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.

[Property_Rights_in_the_History_of_Economic_Thought:_From_Locke_to_J.S._Mill-5] Property Rights in the History of Economic Thought: From Locke to J.S. Mill, by West, Edwin G. 2001. Property Rights: Cooperation, Conflict, and Law, ed. Terry Lee Anderson and Fred S. McChesney, Princeton University Press, 2003, Ch. 1 (pp. 20–42).

[6] "Glossary of Terms". marxists.org. Diakses tanggal 2 March 2017.

[7] Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. hlm. 50. ISBN 978-0195088274. Though socialists have disagreed with Marx about how to conceptualize the notion of class, about the dynamics of class societies, and indeed about a whole host of other matters, most socialists seem to be broadly sympathetic to his views about what is wrong with the capitalist (free enterprise) economic system and, by implication, capitalist society ... Marx’s critique attributes basically two systemic evils to capitalism’s economic system: alienation and exploitation.

[8] O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. hlm. 1135. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. Property income is, by definition, received by virtue of owning property ... Since such income is not an equivalent return for any productive activity, it amounts to an entitlement to a portion of the aggregate output of others’ productive activity. The workforce produces output, but surrenders part of it to people who have nothing directly to do with production. Arguably, this occurs by virtue of a social system to which those in the workforce have never given their full consent, i.e. that of private property. Alternatively, it occurs by virtue of a structure of power to which the workforce is subject: property income is the fruit of exploitation. The fact that it is essential to capitalism makes the latter a class system akin to such other historical cases as slavery and feudalism.

[9] The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "From the human point of view, return paid to non-human factors of production is unearned and equivalent to a free gift of nature. It is the personal appropriation of this free gift of nature by a small minority of society under contemporary capitalism which establishes the ethical unworthiness of capitalism and the desirability of a socialist transformation...The employment of capital instruments and natural resources in economic production requires no personal hardship or exertion from any human being. The economic services provided by these factors of production are not corporeally inherent in human beings. The opposite is true of labor services, which can only be provided through the physical and mental activity of human beings...the really grossly exaggerated personal incomes in society are dominated by property income, and this source of inequality would be abrogated by the equalization of property income distribution."

[10] Posner, A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl. “Property is Monopoly: Creating a Competitive Market in Uses Through Partial Common Ownership.” Chap. 1 in Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]