Private Property

[lummox]

talking of necessities there. I may not own it but may require it to sustain continued existence. i.e. Food water etc. One would "bother" to do it to survive, if not then lay down and die.

Their is a difference between the transient eating and drinking and breathing compared to dividing the land up in imaginary lines and saying it's yours. It's a clever game, called I pretend you have a little, you pretend I have a lottle.

But speaking of neccesities, "we"* got that licked quite some time ago. The fact is, our idea's of ownership were formulated through endless generations of not quite having enough, not enough food, not enough water, not enough healthcare. They seem to be struggling in the face of relative success designed as they are for an environment of scarcity..

As ideas create reality, our ideas of ownership keep trying to recreate that lack. In all kinds of ways.

Our current dilema is mainly how to share the massive abundance we have created. This discussion wouldn't be possible if this wasn't the case.

It's like the situation where a person is dependant upon winning in order to feel good. They must create losers in order to get their buzz.

--------------
"We" being the mythical group beast humanity, which can be talked of as a total I think as long as the mistake of treating it as a seperate thing in itself is avoided.

[sagas4]

Lummox,

Or maybe it is to maintain the illusion of scarcity . . . ( I had written something clever but recalled this says it much better).

In other words scarcity itself may be an illusion.

[NonEntity]

Sagas,

You said, "In other words scarcity itself may be an illusion."

I somewhat agree with your point, but then on the other hand there is Ethiopia where the lack of respect for private property by the government thugs has indeed provided circumstances where scarcity is such that people are dying from it.

As someone said, "Ideas have consequences."

- NonE

[sagas4]

NonE,

If you read what Bucky said about scarcity, I think that matches with what you said.

Another smart one round here also said that ideas have benefits too, so it's ok to use them if they're beneficial.

[NonEntity]

Sagas,

You misread me. I said, "Ideas have consequences." You seem to have infered (I did not say) that means negative ones. That is not what I said nor what I meant.

Haven't (to my disgrace) read any "Bucky." That is an error I would like to rectify if I ever find the time.

(I'm currently getting into the book on economic theory based upon Islamic beliefs called The Problem with Interest and finding it intriguing. I think you might as well. I had to order it from England and it cost a mint - $30+, but what better to spend money on than mental expansion.)

- NonE

- NonE

[sagas4]

Spot on there NonE,

My error in interpretation. I was wrong, thanks for the clarification.

It seemed that's what the intent or meaning was with the example you provided.

P.S. Thanks for the link. If it's good add it to the Recommended Reading Thread.

[sagas4]

Lazer,

Thanks for the explanation. . . no flames here, I disagree as follows:

I don't think it can be about "the land". The land doesn't really care one way or the other about our thoughts beliefs or models. I think thats a barrel distracting the whale. On the other hand people do care especially when it is someone else telling forcing them what to do.

Sure the natives roamed about a little free'er than us; it was self evident (to them) that one couldn't own water and sky and earth; however, they still had disputes and killings, and wars over territory same as today without nukes, so in absence of the concept of ownership as evidenced by the native americans yet having a similar behavior there must be another cause.

Enter control and conflict. . . especially over other humans. We're wiley creatures. If we've got our mind set on takin some Meth you're not gonna stop someone short of killin'em. Now I may believe Meth is the bane of existence, that is of no consequence. The minute I act upon that belief and you disagree and we have no conflict resolution skills, . . . well to stop you from taking that thing that will kill you, I might just have to kill you for your own good.

The model that says it's ok to use force to alter someone's behavior is a problem. Ask anyone do you own me? Even a cop. Most when thinking seriously will answer no, but the cop might reply "no I don't but if you don't do what I tell you" well . . . you get the picture.

The question becomes is this the "norm" or natural? I do not believe it is. (Someone round here will help me out on this) I don't recall the name of the study that looked at disasters and peoples behavior but it was not widely publicized for obvious reasons. When there is a lack of external influence and control from an A-thor-It-tie such as the gubmint, people band together form their own mutual aid, help, exchange systems and they generally do much better at recovering from the disaster much faster.

For evidence of what controlling peoples behavior results in one need Look no further than KATRINA. It is telling that the Places where the Government was MOST involved had the WORST results of the GOVERN-ments intervention.

What is GOVERN-ment?

Sing it with me, CONTROL-ment, a group of people who want nothing more than to CONTROL other people. Perhaps these words help Restrain, Regulate, Have power over, Rule . . . oops, (That last one has to do with straight lines Sorry).

[NonEntity]

You know, it is interesting... we now live in a new age. An age that none of us could really imagine, I don't think. For as long as I've lived I've been aware of the evilness of government, but at the same time I was under some level of belief that there were certain rules that one could count on. Freedom of speech is one of those.

For some reason, after concluding reading Sagas' post above it suddenly struck me between the eyes that there are no longer ANY rules. Government no longer even pretends.

Hmmph. Gonna havta think on that one a bit!

- NonE

[NonEntity]

"... the idea of private property has one decisive attraction: it, and only it, is a true reflection of man's nature as a rational being."

This is from this article: The Sociology of Taxation, by Hans Herman Hoppe, and is excerpted from Chapter 2 of Economics and Ethics of Private Property, newly published by the Mises Institute
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe ($28).

I highly recommend both the article and Hoppe, who also wrote: Democracy, the God that Failed.

- NonE

(This is not to disparage your beliefs/ideas regarding property, Tharrin, but merely to provide more eyes through which to view the subject.)

[lummox]

Good link.

Thank you.

[tharrin]

NonE

Nothing has changed my belief in owning nothing thus far. People want or have some intrinsic need to believe in the concept of ownership, even when it fly's in the face of equal rights. I am of the opinion that nobody has superior right over another on this planet. I am also of the opinion that each person deserves the same respect for privacy and personal space that they would expect for themselves (that is from a normal rational human being). Ownership isn't a necessity to exist, in fact it is a hindrance to those that cannot afford to own. My belief is every person on the planet deserves shelter and it should be the job of each of us to help that into existence. That is a positive or pro-life position where ownership creates a negative influence on what should be a pro-life attitude. Ownership to me says to those that don't own. "I've got mine, who cares about you." In turn this creates resentment and causes friction between the owners and non-owners. It is a negative position that has caused war, poverty, stratification of society and apathy toward our fellow passengers on this big blue rock.

[NonEntity]

Okay, Tharrin. That's a pretty clear statement of your beliefs.

I must ask you this then. Do you see any difference between your beliefs and socialism? Which may loosely be described as: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

And how do you deal with the apparent perverse incentives where the hardworking and industrious will end up supporting the lazy and shiftless? It appears to me that it is a pretty clear and obvious case that those who wish to take a free ride on the backs of the ambitious can do so if there is no concept of property. Do you consider this just?

Or am I missing something in your view?

You say: "My belief is every person on the planet deserves shelter and it should be the job of each of us to help that into existence."

Are you implying that it is my duty to build a house for some drunk who would rather party than work?

It sure seems that is what you are saying, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Isn't this slavery?

If I bust my butt and build a nice house to raise my new family in and protect them from the harsh winter or whatever, what is to prevent you and a bunch of losers from moving in taking over most or all of the home that I've built?

Do you believe that all people are or will be equally generous, hard working, altruistically minded if only we elimiate all claims to property?

If not, how to you deal with my above questions?

Oh. One more. You mention "equal rights." Does not the word "right" imply a position of ownership of something? Unless I have dominion over something, how can I claim a right to it. It appears that the idea of "rights" is totally meaningless unless there is a sense of some form of property. (There can be no up unless you can conceive of down...)

- NonE

[denizen]

When in a confrontation with a socialist, the question I like to ask them is:

"Does MY NEED constitute a JUST claim on YOUR life?"

(this seems more appropriate than the inverse: "does your need consitute a just claim on my life and property")

[tharrin]

If you want to call it an "ism" of some kind then call it what you will. Obviously, Denizen feels the need to label one person (me) who begs the question why are we here, a socialist.

Are we or are we not here to help each other or is it dog eat dog and therefore personal responsibility is negated as long as you have yours; regardless of the expense to your fellow man.

If we are not here to help each other; then stop calling it a society because that implies a social structure based on a concerted effort by all to attain something agreeable to all.

Are we or are we not responsible for our actions? If we are responsible for our actions then we are also responsible for our inactions. If the drunk is homeless because he does not want to work or be a productive person in society then he is responsible for his homelessness. Are we as a society not responsible for his homelessness as well?

Does that mean he is a throw away person?

If the answer is yes, then that is a social breakdown proving the non-functionality of the societal concept. If the answer is no; then society has taken on some of his responsibility for his life and he has conceded some of his freedom of choice to society. If society does not help him is society not responsible for its inactions?

Example: Your friend has a drinking problem. You and he are out one evening and your friend proceeds to attempt the first ever blood for alcohol transfusion. Your friend is obviously unable to make responsible decisions inebriated as he is. Are you now responsibility free for him getting behind the wheel of a car? Are you now un-responsible for him walking out into traffic in this condition? Have you no responsibility for anything that may come of his impaired state? You know and can extrapolate the possibilities that can happen with him in that condition. You are making a conscious choice to walk away from that scenario and washing your hands of the whole thing. Interesting choice.

Have you not allowed whatever consequences to unfold by actively choosing to ignore or not get involved with your friends problem? Knowing that bit of information; do you or do you not have a responsibility to act?

There will always be people who have self-destructive tendencies in society, If society, does not address these issues then the issues will eventually spill into the society which can and will disrupt the lives of the productive members of society.

So to say you are not responsible for the “Drunk” is socially unacceptable and countermands and undermines the concept of society which implies socialism.

Unfortunately, your choice of “Drunk” does not cover all aspects and reasons for homelessness. Many are homeless for reasons beyond their own ability to control. Are these people any the less valuable to society? If the answer is yes, then you have created elitism not a society. If the answer is no, they are not throw away, then your answer implies responsibility.

Of course I believe everyone should pull their own weight. If you are non-functional then you need to take responsibility and become functional. If that is not possible under your own ability does society have responsibility to help you? If the answer is no then it is not a society, which by definition implies inclusiveness. If the answer is yes, then society has taken on some of the burden for that person.

There will always be a percentile that cannot function regardless of personal responsibility. Are these people throw away? Under the present system that appears to be the case, which is very unsociable and anti-societal.

To address your question about me moving in with you and the rest of the losers I obviously hang out with, I respect you too much to do so without your permission. I wouldn’t ask you to house me unless I was destitute, sickly, addicted, physically impaired, mentally unstable, or a social pariah. These conditions do not allow me to live with you without your permission. It does, however, allow me to pitch a tent on your easement and roast weenies in front of your house. Remember you do not own that piece of property so you have no control over it. Every day I can beg from you and your visitors as you pass me on the way to your house or you and the other productive members of your society can use your armed guards to knock down my tent, put out my fire and drag me off to your concrete boarding house called jail. Problem solved.

Except, instead of empowering me you have debased me even further. You have caused me to want to reject your society and all it stands for and given me no reason to join your society. You have negatively impacted me further financially, emotionally and socially.

If society, had, on the other hand, attempted to help me with my problems, opened up avenues, allowed me access to employment and self-respect (regardless of my problems) I could be positively impacted and want to be a part of your society and aid in its support.

So now my question to you is…Is it just to be irresponsible for the lowest members of your society? What if it’s a drug addict? What if it is a war veteran who was injured protecting your society? Extrapolate and you will find any scenario can either be handled with violence or with love and respect for human life and its fragilities.

Reverse the circumstances and place your self in the place of the drunk, druggie, veteran, destitute, jobless, etc, etc, etc. If society ignores you what are your options? Do you feel it is just to be ignored, pushed around by societies armed guards and thrown into a concrete and iron bar hotel? Obviously, a resounding “YES” is implied in the current society.

Okay, is being responsible for your fellow human beings slavery? I would have to say no but you might see it differently. You might think it is a burden you shouldn’t have to shoulder. Is anybody sticking a gun in your face to make you be responsible for your fellow beings? In the present system yes it is. Why? Because nobody is doing it without being forced for the most part. They got theirs and really don’t care about you. To top it off they have the audacity to complain about you drunks, druggies, veterans, mentally and physically impaired losers (to quote someone earlier in this thread). So the answer in this society is to ignore, imprison, shuttle out of sight, or chastise those that have problems. Instead of empowering them through support, inclusion and empathy toward their personal problems we today choose to fault them for it and get pissed off that the society that we choose to live in makes us responsible against our will.

Which is the better world NonE and Denison. Anti-social society or socially inclusive and empowering society? Either way it implies socialism in one form or another.

Someone else’s need does not justify a claim on my life, even if the circumstances are reversed. I have no claim on anyone’s life; nor do you have a claim on mine. So are we justified in doing nothing for those who are not so fortunate?

[denizen]

Tharrin – it would appear that you do NOT propose coercion. I can only see two possible ways human beings can deal with one another: Voluntarily or non-voluntarily.

Your vision seems to require some other (third) way?

If you can identify a third way please clue us in.

(that label does/did not apply to you – I should have found a better way of expressing myself)