|
Property and ownership are concepts I have great difficulty in coming up with an elegant solution. They have been discussed in classical philosophy literature, but I feel many of those justifications are flawed or not applicable to standards of modern society. These theories are such a fundamental aspect of our lives, yet most people never give it any thought.
Consider this scenario: you are stranded on a remote tropical island with a group of fellow survivors, a typical lost on the seas set-up. Your first task is to build shelters to shield yourself from the elements. Immediately the problem is revealed: how should it be determined who gets what piece of real estate? Say on a stretch of buildable land, on one end is the foot of a sheer muddy cliff and the other end is close to a natural spring. Strong preference will be given for the latter option, because of the convenience of water and the dangers of a mudslide at the other end. The survivors were previously on par with each other, but now a decision must be made which presumably reflects that individual’s value.
The primal solution is that the physically dominant subject gets to take the best plot, and indeed pretty much dictates whatever activities they wish, lest any opponent would like to face physical altercation. This lone individual is defeated by a team of survivors, banding together to jointly oust such a bully from their dominance. Thus equilibrium does tend to favour some form of social order, and we value civilized practices which allow the overall greatest quality of life.
So back to the island: who gets first choice? Once the property has been divided, out of practical necessity, it is considered their own space for at least a reasonable span of time. The question may seem trivial, when most of the survivors may not have much of a preference, but already their net assets and wealth have changed by assuming “ownership” of their plot of land.
The concept of property is also essential for practical reasons. If everything were public space, people would be deprived of privacy, and a reliable location where they can store items, sleep, and retreat to. Swapping the property every week is also impractical due to costs of moving everything. But can the concept of land “ownership” ever be called fair? That just because no one else had claimed ownership previously, that they could arbitrarily call it a piece of their own asset?
These questions also apply to property outside of land. Consider the survivors valued lumber and trees to build shelters. Who owns the logs? It is absolutely unfair if a person can walk into a swath of desirable timber and call it their own. Here, Locke’s postulate states that if work has been done on that item, it may be considered owned by the worker. So if Jack goes out one day and cuts down all the trees in the forest, he owns all the wood? This does not seem to be a valid or just proposition.
Here is where the problems of capitalism arise. In order to divide the wealth in such a way that free market trading is permitted, people must have private ownership of property. But, the origins of such “rights” merely came from sticking flags in the soil and claiming rights to the land and its contents.
Therefore, this island community is more likely to benefit from a communist model. Everything is shared. The concept of “property” must be discarded. They should realize that their claim to privacy on their real estate is merely borne of convenience. If some deposit of precious mineral were found in a plot under someone’s hut, they should have no claims to that. Hence, the model of “rights” and laws we have established in modern society should be abolished as well. People are not inherently gifted basic human rights simply on the grounds that they live as a person. Everything is a privilege that must be earned, including “ownership” privileges. Therefore, in employing this communist system of decision making (the term government was intentionally avoided), everyone is not entitled to “rights”. They must earn their wealth through effort, labour, and talent. Those who contribute more to the overall good of society should expect a greater share of goods and services.
If ownership as a principle could not be protected by a system of laws, what then maintains order in this society? The only answer to this is respect. The islanders must be infused with a strong foundation of goodwill. If someone is sleeping in the tent beside me, what stops me from stealing his possessions or kicking down his tent is not a law put in place that penalizes offenders, but my respect for his “property” that is supposedly best utilized under his control. Any offenders that do not grasp this concept are more trouble than they are worth and should be purged.
Haha OK I get the sense I am going wayyy off track, but it’s getting late and I need to sleep. I’ve been sleep deprived for a couple days. I know people will strongly disagree with what I wrote; I would probably feel the same if I read it again, but I don’t want to. The ideas are unpolished and probably way off what I meant. Flame on.
|
I really like this blog.
...and i have no clue lol, i don't get property ownership AT ALL
I think I'm crazy because i dont get so many things that humanity does..and I have very little attraction to those things.
|
Property comes from the sense of "earning" things. I work hard and I receive cash which is a universal symbol of my intelligence/strength/being good at something which therefore, since I must be contributing to society on a small scale. Cash is then used to attain goods which bring me happiness. Stealing is looked down upon in all cultures because usually it means that you are not good at anything which means you don't contribute to society so why should you have anything? If you are good at something then why don't you do it for a job and make money?
|
Osaka27174 Posts
You were doing fine until the end. Communism requires an oppressive bourgeois which is overthrown by a worker's revolution. Following that the communist party manages the state until they have fulfilled their reforms, where they gladly step down and join the rest of the proletariat.
It is the last part that usually gets screwed up.
I think in your example what is required in your island example is nothing more than common decency. If the survivors accept their fate and do not try to escape from the island, than the need for procreation will kick in. If they are determined to elave the island, the person with the technical skills to best help them will take a leadership role.
|
I think the above posters are right, assuming the island is abundant there will be no significant conflict over property. Once population rises to a certain point conflict will begin.
|
Here's a simple solution: no inheritance. (Or at least, no inheriting land/natural resources.) That way, once the older generations die off, everyone who owns land will have bought it themselves.
Of course it's hard to keep people from cheating the system and selling their land to their kids for a dollar. You could make it illegal to buy and sell land directly, however. (Instead, all land sold would go to a centralized auction.)
|
im really curious as to why people who have so much money that they couldn't even spend it all, use all of their money to get even more money...i just don't get it...
|
I think it's useless to try and use these really simple situations like "5 people stranded on an island" to try and derive a system to use in modern society. modern society is just waaaaay too big and complicated to derive from first principles like that. It works much better to just think of specific ways we could change the law, and what effect that might have.
|
On March 24 2010 13:58 Manifesto7 wrote:
You were doing fine until the end. Communism requires an oppressive bourgeois which is overthrown by a worker's revolution. Following that the communist party manages the state until they have fulfilled their reforms, where they gladly step down and join the rest of the proletariat.
It is the last part that usually gets screwed up.
I'd argue that the italicized part tends to get screwed up first considering that the so-called "reforms" are rarely if ever to the benefit of the public.
Those who have power will always wish to use it. Our species sucks balls.
|
A world without scarcity lends itself to communism. But there is no such thing as a world without scarcity. Certain goods do not have the satiety property.
|
Its not respect that stops you from kicking down his tent and stealing his stuff. Its the fact that he will kick your ass and get the other islanders to hang you.
I doubt anybody gets first choice, whoever has the most useful skills (doctor, engineer, what-have-you) will probably be given it by the others, as well as whoever has best social leadership skills. The rest probably draw lots.
|
Matter and resources on Earth are never created or destroyed they are simply transformed into different "products". Capitalism is the art of transforming these resources into products that creates a value or a property for the buyers of such products. Everytime a company creates a box to secure the product or a plastic bag to sell the goods in, the company is generating money. Then they pay to other people. (building owner, investors, etc.)
This Saturday when the world goes "Lights out" for an hour it represents the world's awareness in being "Green friendly". When we are more green friendly we require less "products" from around the world. When the demand for products drops does that mean an end or a decline to Capitalism?
I think of it as a product life cycle graph. It makes sense to me. But what do I know, I am just writing about this at work. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
