Last night’s comment was much too stream of thought. While much of it is true from a certain perspective it omits the theory of ownership supporting all of it.
We start with founding ownership in a certain way: the basis of ownership is self-ownership. I as a nervous system own my own body because of innervation, and we say that ownership itself is innervation.
This is intuitive. All our upset at violations flows from this sense of ownership of our own bodies. As people, we naturally extend this ownership to things we habitually use. They form extensions of ourselves, that even though we don’t enervate them, our operative control of them in proportion to how often and how effectively we do control them, give us a similar sense of ownership over even if it is not ownership in fact.
Understanding this, we can evaluate property claims. They are merely the claim that “I use that often, and it doesn’t object”, to some degree. This is common sense, and to some degree normative, since no one wants their habitual life supports taken away, just like no one wants their body violated.
If we see this, then we see there is in fact an ownership gradient flowing out from individuals and interacting with other’s gradients, and this manifold is the true ownership of everything that is not innervated.
Understood this way, we have all we need to query historical/legal property claims. All we need ask is who has some habitual interactive use of a given element. Apply this to the office building, and it’s obvious that the workers have the most claim. However, this is still on balance with the owner-of-record’s use, however problematic, as their habitual use supports their own life.
This tension is what we negotiate through the SEC transition and lease to mortgage change. Through the SEC transition, former owners receive support for their life, receiving family heirlooms and any other real property (real property being those things that no one but them habitually use). Through the lease to mortgage change, the true owners of the home by virtue of living there receive that acknowledgement and legal status, while those with fiat ownership through whatever economic coercion receive mortgage payments to ensure that to whatever extent they rely on those payments, they can transition to something founded in real ownership and not exploitation. [Edit: looking at this further, I’m not sure even these are helpful. No one should have to pay 60PMI a month to their former landlord just because they happened to accumulate more currency in the former system. It would also be rewarding those former owners for their exploitation instead of giving them a new start with everyone else.]
However, this is mostly beside the point, to the extent that these economic relationships from former owners do not have any true habitual use claims other than monetary enrichment. The Social Economy already equalizes purchasing power, so no one can claim that a monetary shortfall affects them more than anyone else. To make that claim would be to plead addiction to a certain lifestyle, and there are many other better ways to deal with that.
Say you have the ability to build a box that if someone turns the crank, there’s some non-zero probability of a golden egg popping out. The more you turn the crank, the more likely an egg pops out.
So you build the box, turn the crank, and after a very long time and lots of cranking out pops an egg. Who owns the egg? Well, pretty obviously you, you built the box, you turned the crank. Both activities required the use of your body and other elements, and no one else contributed.
Now, in your old age, your arms are getting tired, but you now rely on the income from selling the eggs. So you have your sons turn the crank alternately and out pops an egg. Who owns the egg? Well, you built the box and turned the crank any number of times, but now the labor of your sons caused the egg to pop out, not yours.
This is complex. Historically and “intuitively” you still own the egg. It’s your box, you’ve been using it your whole life. But is this really intuitive? Not only did your creative work and faithful maintenance cause the box to exist, but the labor of your sons also caused the egg to pop out.
Now you live for a long time arraigning to share the proceeds with your sons for their labor. Eventually you die, the gold notwithstanding. Now your sons, dependent on the egg income, agree to share the box as they have been already for years. They turn the crank, alternately, and eggs pop out. Who owns the eggs? Clearly either of the brothers own some portion of each egg, but how much?
We continue on in this way over centuries with many boxes, many eggs, many creators, and many laborers.
Now the question is, who owns the boxes, and who owns the eggs?
In my previous post I gave a theory that the crank turners own the box and the eggs in proportion to their crank turning, but perhaps this treats the box creators unfairly. What do you think?
Last night’s comment was much too stream of thought. While much of it is true from a certain perspective it omits the theory of ownership supporting all of it.
We start with founding ownership in a certain way: the basis of ownership is self-ownership. I as a nervous system own my own body because of innervation, and we say that ownership itself is innervation.
This is intuitive. All our upset at violations flows from this sense of ownership of our own bodies. As people, we naturally extend this ownership to things we habitually use. They form extensions of ourselves, that even though we don’t enervate them, our operative control of them in proportion to how often and how effectively we do control them, give us a similar sense of ownership over even if it is not ownership in fact.
Understanding this, we can evaluate property claims. They are merely the claim that “I use that often, and it doesn’t object”, to some degree. This is common sense, and to some degree normative, since no one wants their habitual life supports taken away, just like no one wants their body violated.
If we see this, then we see there is in fact an ownership gradient flowing out from individuals and interacting with other’s gradients, and this manifold is the true ownership of everything that is not innervated.
Understood this way, we have all we need to query historical/legal property claims. All we need ask is who has some habitual interactive use of a given element. Apply this to the office building, and it’s obvious that the workers have the most claim. However, this is still on balance with the owner-of-record’s use, however problematic, as their habitual use supports their own life.
This tension is what we negotiate through the SEC transition and lease to mortgage change. Through the SEC transition, former owners receive support for their life, receiving family heirlooms and any other real property (real property being those things that no one but them habitually use). Through the lease to mortgage change, the true owners of the home by virtue of living there receive that acknowledgement and legal status, while those with fiat ownership through whatever economic coercion receive mortgage payments to ensure that to whatever extent they rely on those payments, they can transition to something founded in real ownership and not exploitation. [Edit: looking at this further, I’m not sure even these are helpful. No one should have to pay 60PMI a month to their former landlord just because they happened to accumulate more currency in the former system. It would also be rewarding those former owners for their exploitation instead of giving them a new start with everyone else.]
However, this is mostly beside the point, to the extent that these economic relationships from former owners do not have any true habitual use claims other than monetary enrichment. The Social Economy already equalizes purchasing power, so no one can claim that a monetary shortfall affects them more than anyone else. To make that claim would be to plead addiction to a certain lifestyle, and there are many other better ways to deal with that.
By way of analogy:
Say you have the ability to build a box that if someone turns the crank, there’s some non-zero probability of a golden egg popping out. The more you turn the crank, the more likely an egg pops out.
So you build the box, turn the crank, and after a very long time and lots of cranking out pops an egg. Who owns the egg? Well, pretty obviously you, you built the box, you turned the crank. Both activities required the use of your body and other elements, and no one else contributed.
Now, in your old age, your arms are getting tired, but you now rely on the income from selling the eggs. So you have your sons turn the crank alternately and out pops an egg. Who owns the egg? Well, you built the box and turned the crank any number of times, but now the labor of your sons caused the egg to pop out, not yours.
This is complex. Historically and “intuitively” you still own the egg. It’s your box, you’ve been using it your whole life. But is this really intuitive? Not only did your creative work and faithful maintenance cause the box to exist, but the labor of your sons also caused the egg to pop out.
Now you live for a long time arraigning to share the proceeds with your sons for their labor. Eventually you die, the gold notwithstanding. Now your sons, dependent on the egg income, agree to share the box as they have been already for years. They turn the crank, alternately, and eggs pop out. Who owns the eggs? Clearly either of the brothers own some portion of each egg, but how much?
We continue on in this way over centuries with many boxes, many eggs, many creators, and many laborers.
Now the question is, who owns the boxes, and who owns the eggs?
In my previous post I gave a theory that the crank turners own the box and the eggs in proportion to their crank turning, but perhaps this treats the box creators unfairly. What do you think?