Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:42:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
976 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them.
> 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.
I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily
decreases your ability to enjoy 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.
You are in effect saying that the only system that could work is the one we
have. Is that what you really mean? If we have rules to cover "all potential
situations" now, why couldn't we have them phrased differently? Or is there
something about our ownership (which certainly isn't hard-line control) that
implicitly handles the problems you're talking about? I mean we have property
disputes mediated by courts all the time now, so why not under my plan?
> 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.
OK, I was taking what you were saying to mean that "people want to control
every little aspect of the behavior of other people" rather than "in general,
people want a stable environment." And I think it really is a stable
environment that you're pointing to as the desire, not just control.
> 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.
I don't think so. As much as people make mistakes and have desires, there
would always be some level of dissatisfaction and that's OK. Court challenges
to the redistribution would be a healthy part of the system. And I do think
that after a generation or so, people would get less possessive of the land.
> 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".
That's not really how I see it working. I do expect people to want what they
want. Some folks want an apartment in Manhattan and others want a cabin on a
lake in northern Minnesota. Some people would be happy contributing part of
their land allotment to a factory project and others would not. But they're
all going to want what they want. If there were a redistributive process tied
to the census apportioning 40% (or whatever) of the land to residences, it
could be reparcelled and passed out. I imagine that an auction would be the
best way to distribute the land. LandZilla! People might be able to take
stewardship of 300 acres of Arizona desert, 40 acres of Iowa farmland, or that
Manhattan apartment all for the same land credit. In fact, certain kinds of
use permits might also be part of the auction. And to complicate things
further, bonuses of some kind might be applied to the bidding for people who're
currently in stewardship of the on-offer parcel or for uses that The People
wanted to incent.
> 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.
The more "need" based it is, the more conflict would arise. On the other hand,
if it were just parcelled out and auctioned those kinds of _personal_
complaints wouldn't even arise. People would sometimes be dissatisfied, I'm
sure, but not necessarily at someone in specific. And lots of people would not
be upset about it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
