I’m not sure what precisely some of your statements relate to what I posted, nor even what you intend them to mean. I’m left guessing.
Maybe you’re referring to my lack of mention of other rights often associated with ownership: access, use, disposition, transfer, destruction. However, not only do none of those, or all of them together, constitute ownership—none of them are necessary to constitute ownership.
”Necessary but not sufficient” doesn’t even apply here, because the only necessary right that constitutes ownership is the right to deprive others from the access to, use of, disposition of, transfer of, or destruction of a desirable whether the owner accesses, uses, dispositions, transfers, or destroys the desirable or not. An owner can have completely forgotten about a piece of property for 50 years, has not accessed, used, dispositioned, transferred, or destroyed it in all that time—but if their deprivation of the property from all humankind is violated, it will be considered illegal or even immoral.
I had misinterpreted your text; since “deprive” is an emotionally charged word, I assumed you mean that owner deprives the owned of something, some autonomy.
An owner can have completely forgotten about a piece of property for 50 years, has not accessed, used, dispositioned, transferred, or destroyed it in all that time—but if their deprivation of the property from all humankind is violated, it will be considered illegal or even immoral.
This makes your intended meaning clearer. So, owner prevents every other being from interacting with their owned. I can totally see where you’re going with this (after all, “Utopia” by Thomas More did state something similar), but the productive discussion is blocked on these three things:
Evidence. Lots of evidence wanted, and a bunch totally required. How would you expect situation to play out under no ownership, but “reasonable use” rules or like? More importantly, why do you expect that? Have you seen examples how reasonable use works? Have there been demonstrating experiments, or human tendencies to play nice?
Shared ownership, its limit being the cases where every being has control over a thing—like environment (atmosphere, more specifically).
Are you that sure that “ownership” concept is so rigid these days? See: marriage (historical) and polyamory. See: fair use exemptions on copyrighted material.
Have you read Utopia? I have. The problems with More’s thinking are the same assumptions that corrupt most thinking on the topic of the structure and operation of society: supremacism and authoritarianism. “Power corrupts” because it’s corrupt itself, embodying supremacism and authoritarianism and using violence as its chief tool.
Discussion is in no way blocked if you’re interested in discussing. I’m not trying to prove anything. The reactions people have to these ideas prove that they’re potent enough. Proof isn’t needed.
Your #1 is an example of an almost universal reaction I get once a person sees that there’s something to what I’m saying: they want me to tell them how it’s going to work. One, that’s not my job, but it would be dope to find people who want to explore that together. Two, the question whether you or I or all of us together have the information and understanding at this point to “make it work” is completely irrelevant to the question whether ownership is what I’ve said it is. If it is, it is—and our ability or incapability to “make it work” is neither here nor there in that regard. There are far more important and foundational questions to deal with first:
Why haven’t we noticed that we’ve been trying to achieve fairness and prosperity on the basis of such a perverse principle?
How could we be so naive as to think that we can make anything work until we figure out what went wrong with our thinking?
What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first? The repulsion certainly isn’t an intelligent reaction, because we’ve never even made the attempt to find out what it’s like and how it would work, let alone experimented with it long enough to obtain reliable data from which to derive any intelligent conclusions or make any non-BS pronouncements.
There is a deeply enculturated bias against merely entertaining the possibility that there could be something deeply perverse and dysfunctional about ownership. It expresses itself forcefully and smugly whenever I bring the topic up. If you can’t even get people to think about an idea rationally, openly, and honestly, how the heck are they ever going to experiment with it properly to gain an intelligent basis for answering the “make it work” question?
To your #3, I don’t think it will help the discussion to complicate it or bring everything but the kitchen sink in for consideration. The kind of ownership I’m talking about is obvious and ubiquitous: the kind recognized in a court of law. It’s enough to start with that and focus on that. Let’s talk about the camel, not its fleas.
There are far more important and foundational questions to deal with first:
Those “foundational questions”, however, depend on whether we can make it work. You can’t just ignore that there’s no way to make it work and yet ask questions that depend on it!
For instance, if it’s impossible to make it work, then the answer to “What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first? ” is “because we are repulsed from ideas that don’t work”.
No, dude. You’re thinking backwards. If you can’t answer foundational questions, you literally don’t know what “it” is, so how are you going to make “it” work? If you can’t deal with an idea conceptually, what makes you think you’ve got the competence to deal with it practically?
I’m not ignoring anything. Focusing on first steps first doesn’t mean you deny there are more steps...
But back your claim. You claim that the foundational questions “depend” on whether we can make it work. Explain that dependency. “You can’t just ignore that there’s no way to make it work...” So, you’ve already decided there’s no way to make it work. How did you do that? What stops it from working?
Your last paragraph was interesting, though. There you allow that “impossible to make it work” is an “if”. For every “if” there’s a counter-if: if it’s possible to make it work, then the answer to, “What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first?” is: because we’re delusionally paranoid.
But your statement fails, because you can’t determine if it’s possible to make “it” work until AFTER:
1. You understand what “it” is. 2. You have answers to foundational questions about “it”. 3. You understand “it” well enough to actually try to make “it” work. 4. You actually try very hard, in every which way you can think of, over and over, to make it work but fail to make “it” work—at which point you are justified in saying, “We couldn’t make it work,” but no one is ever justified in saying, “It cannot be made to work.”
So, you’re really making claims without any rational/evidential basis here.
If you can’t answer foundational questions, you literally don’t know what “it” is, so how are you going to make “it” work?
Because your “foundational questions” are not the type of questions that describe what it is. They are the type of questions whose answers depend on whether we can make it work. The answers to your questions would be something like:
Why haven’t we noticed that we’ve been trying to achieve fairness and prosperity on the basis of such a perverse principle?
Because if other principles don’t work, picking the one that does work, even if it has problems, isn’t perverse.
How could we be so naive as to think that we can make anything work until we figure out what went wrong with our thinking?
Because if getting rid of property doesn’t work, this question is based on a false premise—there isn’t actually anything wrong with our thinking.
What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first?
People are repulsed by running society based on something that doesn’t work.
If you can’t even get people to think about an idea rationally, openly, and honestly, how the heck are they ever going to experiment with it properly to gain an intelligent basis for answering the “make it work” question?
If it doesn’t work, this question is based on a false premise, because if it doesn’t work, they have in fact answered the question intelligently.
I’m not sure what precisely some of your statements relate to what I posted, nor even what you intend them to mean. I’m left guessing.
Maybe you’re referring to my lack of mention of other rights often associated with ownership: access, use, disposition, transfer, destruction. However, not only do none of those, or all of them together, constitute ownership—none of them are necessary to constitute ownership.
”Necessary but not sufficient” doesn’t even apply here, because the only necessary right that constitutes ownership is the right to deprive others from the access to, use of, disposition of, transfer of, or destruction of a desirable whether the owner accesses, uses, dispositions, transfers, or destroys the desirable or not. An owner can have completely forgotten about a piece of property for 50 years, has not accessed, used, dispositioned, transferred, or destroyed it in all that time—but if their deprivation of the property from all humankind is violated, it will be considered illegal or even immoral.
I had misinterpreted your text; since “deprive” is an emotionally charged word, I assumed you mean that owner deprives the owned of something, some autonomy.
This makes your intended meaning clearer. So, owner prevents every other being from interacting with their owned. I can totally see where you’re going with this (after all, “Utopia” by Thomas More did state something similar), but the productive discussion is blocked on these three things:
Evidence. Lots of evidence wanted, and a bunch totally required.
How would you expect situation to play out under no ownership, but “reasonable use” rules or like? More importantly, why do you expect that? Have you seen examples how reasonable use works? Have there been demonstrating experiments, or human tendencies to play nice?
Shared ownership, its limit being the cases where every being has control over a thing—like environment (atmosphere, more specifically).
Are you that sure that “ownership” concept is so rigid these days? See: marriage (historical) and polyamory. See: fair use exemptions on copyrighted material.
Have you read Utopia? I have. The problems with More’s thinking are the same assumptions that corrupt most thinking on the topic of the structure and operation of society: supremacism and authoritarianism. “Power corrupts” because it’s corrupt itself, embodying supremacism and authoritarianism and using violence as its chief tool.
Discussion is in no way blocked if you’re interested in discussing. I’m not trying to prove anything. The reactions people have to these ideas prove that they’re potent enough. Proof isn’t needed.
Your #1 is an example of an almost universal reaction I get once a person sees that there’s something to what I’m saying: they want me to tell them how it’s going to work. One, that’s not my job, but it would be dope to find people who want to explore that together. Two, the question whether you or I or all of us together have the information and understanding at this point to “make it work” is completely irrelevant to the question whether ownership is what I’ve said it is. If it is, it is—and our ability or incapability to “make it work” is neither here nor there in that regard. There are far more important and foundational questions to deal with first:
Why haven’t we noticed that we’ve been trying to achieve fairness and prosperity on the basis of such a perverse principle?
How could we be so naive as to think that we can make anything work until we figure out what went wrong with our thinking?
What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first? The repulsion certainly isn’t an intelligent reaction, because we’ve never even made the attempt to find out what it’s like and how it would work, let alone experimented with it long enough to obtain reliable data from which to derive any intelligent conclusions or make any non-BS pronouncements.
There is a deeply enculturated bias against merely entertaining the possibility that there could be something deeply perverse and dysfunctional about ownership. It expresses itself forcefully and smugly whenever I bring the topic up. If you can’t even get people to think about an idea rationally, openly, and honestly, how the heck are they ever going to experiment with it properly to gain an intelligent basis for answering the “make it work” question?
To your #3, I don’t think it will help the discussion to complicate it or bring everything but the kitchen sink in for consideration. The kind of ownership I’m talking about is obvious and ubiquitous: the kind recognized in a court of law. It’s enough to start with that and focus on that. Let’s talk about the camel, not its fleas.
Those “foundational questions”, however, depend on whether we can make it work. You can’t just ignore that there’s no way to make it work and yet ask questions that depend on it!
For instance, if it’s impossible to make it work, then the answer to “What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first? ” is “because we are repulsed from ideas that don’t work”.
No, dude. You’re thinking backwards. If you can’t answer foundational questions, you literally don’t know what “it” is, so how are you going to make “it” work? If you can’t deal with an idea conceptually, what makes you think you’ve got the competence to deal with it practically?
I’m not ignoring anything. Focusing on first steps first doesn’t mean you deny there are more steps...
But back your claim. You claim that the foundational questions “depend” on whether we can make it work. Explain that dependency. “You can’t just ignore that there’s no way to make it work...” So, you’ve already decided there’s no way to make it work. How did you do that? What stops it from working?
Your last paragraph was interesting, though. There you allow that “impossible to make it work” is an “if”. For every “if” there’s a counter-if: if it’s possible to make it work, then the answer to, “What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first?” is: because we’re delusionally paranoid.
But your statement fails, because you can’t determine if it’s possible to make “it” work until AFTER:
1. You understand what “it” is.
2. You have answers to foundational questions about “it”.
3. You understand “it” well enough to actually try to make “it” work.
4. You actually try very hard, in every which way you can think of, over and over, to make it work but fail to make “it” work—at which point you are justified in saying, “We couldn’t make it work,” but no one is ever justified in saying, “It cannot be made to work.”
So, you’re really making claims without any rational/evidential basis here.
Because your “foundational questions” are not the type of questions that describe what it is. They are the type of questions whose answers depend on whether we can make it work. The answers to your questions would be something like:
Because if other principles don’t work, picking the one that does work, even if it has problems, isn’t perverse.
Because if getting rid of property doesn’t work, this question is based on a false premise—there isn’t actually anything wrong with our thinking.
People are repulsed by running society based on something that doesn’t work.
If it doesn’t work, this question is based on a false premise, because if it doesn’t work, they have in fact answered the question intelligently.