Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:59:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
966 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Then again, in Libertopia, one expects that when one *buys* land, one buys
> > it *from* someone. Hence, if you were dumb enough to sell the space you
> > physically occupy to someone else, leaving you with nothing, tough beans to
> > you. At least, such would be a capitalist view, I would think.
>
> That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just.
Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I
think I would call it just.
> > One is left with the fact that humans like control over as
> > much as possible; and as such, we like to be able to control
> > whether or not *other* people walk on land X, so that we can
> > use land X for our own purposes, controlling it, effectively.
>
> I'm not yet convinced.
>
> I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable state of
> wanting to control as much as possible. I certainly work with people who act
> that way, but the ones I live with don't seem to. Some people are control
> freaks,
Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't
have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system works for them. But
that's hard. Further, you have to ensure that people who DO want control are
eliminated for it to work practically. Either they have to disappear or
their desires have to be changed.
> but that doesn't invalidate a philosophy.
No, it doesn't. And I agree that your system would be great if it could
work. I just don't think it could work. At least-- I don't think it would
work on an ultimate scale; that is to say it might conceivably work in
select communities/societies.
> Further, I don't think that a lack of ownership directly implies a lack of
> rules. I can envision many systems of stewardship distribution that would
> allow: current owner-like control, the ability to petition The People for land
> use restrictions, owner-like control reduced from or increased over today's,
> or complete fredom within certain legal guidelines that could be homogeneous
> or not. The point of preventing trespass (I guess) is to protect yourself and
> stuff from dangerous or theiving behavior of others, like hunting.
The problem becomes what constitutes a self-preservation, and what
constitutes 'dangerous' or destructive actions. Part of the reason I like
having my own 'place' is that I don't want to have to listen to person X's
music, or listen to their conversations. I basically enjoy a degree of
privacy. And what I construe as an invasion of my privacy and/or destruction
of 'my' property might conflict with others definitions. And I doubt there
are rules to cover all potential situations well enough to be an effective
system for human beings in general.
> I doubt that the desire for control for the sake of control is an inherent
> human attribute. I'd tend to chalk it up to bad parenting :-)
I think I disagree. Part of the thought process is deciding what we want,
and how we can get it. I want food? What methods can I use to get food? Etc.
And my experiences need to be consistant in order for me to make progress
mentally. And in order to help ensure consistancy, I have a desire for
control. I dunno. I think the desire for control is innate; though it
doesn't mean that one can keep such a desire in check for want of social
civility. But then again, I suppose that's further instance of wanting
control-- we want to maintain a balance social structure. In other words, we
want to CONTROL the social structure such that it remains intact; not to say
that we want to bend it to our personal whimsy.
> > Inevitably, given that land would be treated as a commons, a
> > social system would develop leading to property rights. Just human nature, I
> > would say.
>
> Well, some enumeration of potentially transient property rights would be a
> great idea. Technically a lease on a property is considered an ownership
> interest and the leasee has property rights with regard to the leased
> property. It could be similar in a social/stewardship model of land use. I
> don't have a problem with property rights per se, just with the ownership of
> property. I think the toughest part of my idealized vision is figuring out
> how to periodically redistribute stewardship without causing undue hardship on
> everyone.But that's essentially just a technical hurdle.
Agree-- and therein is the difficulty (and I would probably say futility) of
the system. In your ideal system, people whose stewardship was redefined
would recognize and accept without remorse or struggle the land
redistribution. In fact, not only (in an ideal system) would they merely
*accept* it, but *encourage* it. "Hey, I've got too much! Bob needs some
more," or "Ok, I recognize that I have more than Bob, I'll reliquish part of
my control".
However, as obviated above, my personal slant on that one is that in reality
some people would resent the redistribution and argue that others' need was
lesser and that their need was greater. "I barely have enough as is to meet
my needs! Joe has more than he needs, take it from him! Besides, Bob doesn't
really NEED more." Etc.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
