Ownership == certainty of access and control,
and "collective ownership" as a concept makes perfect sense.
Collective ownership in practice is often achieved at smaller scales. Politics is the management of larger scales of collective ownership.
We're exhibiting collective ownership of the atmosphere right now, nevermind the inequality bit. Neanderthals All did it.
Does an animal own it's nest? Regardless of what you answer, the word does the work.
collective ownership
Re: collective ownership
What happens when the institutions you create to manage ownership are the very institutions which deprive you of it when political power shifts?Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:56 pm Ownership == certainty of access and control,
and "collective ownership" as a concept makes perfect sense.
Collective ownership in practice is often achieved at smaller scales. Politics is the management of larger scales of collective ownership.
We're exhibiting collective ownership of the atmosphere right now, nevermind the inequality bit. Neanderthals All did it.
Does an animal own it's nest? Regardless of what you answer, the word does the work.
Personally, I prefer optionality. I don't need control - often access is sufficient with the option to control (ownership).
There are times where renting resources makes way more economic sense than owning them.
Re: collective ownership
[quote=Skepdick post_id=505041 time=1617121510 user_id=17350]
[/quote]
>What happens when the institutions you create to manage ownership are the very institutions which deprive you of it when political power shifts?
Legitimate ownership, legal ownership, and actual ownership have to be understood and treated differently.
>Personally, I prefer optionality. I don't need control - often access is sufficient with the option to control (ownership).
>There are times where renting resources makes way more economic sense than owning them.
You still "own" certainty of access and control when you rent something, it's just for a limited time. Ownership (legitimate or legal) can have all kinds of conditions.
[/quote]
>What happens when the institutions you create to manage ownership are the very institutions which deprive you of it when political power shifts?
Legitimate ownership, legal ownership, and actual ownership have to be understood and treated differently.
>Personally, I prefer optionality. I don't need control - often access is sufficient with the option to control (ownership).
>There are times where renting resources makes way more economic sense than owning them.
You still "own" certainty of access and control when you rent something, it's just for a limited time. Ownership (legitimate or legal) can have all kinds of conditions.
Re: collective ownership
Well, then I own everything that has a price tag I can afford.
I probably even own things that didn't normally have a price tag, but money talks.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: collective ownership
We need SOME minimal means of personal private space as our 'own'. The Earth (including private spaces) though is not 'owned' by anything. It is an artificial construct. Without 'laws' or 'direct force', what is owned beyond one's literal own body and acts they use to survive, means that a claim is made beyond the normal extent of one's personal reach. It has to then be understood as some FORCEFUL declaration of the holder of the label, "owner", to their means of privileged control over some property that is normally shared where not reserved for all other's equal access.
I think that there are some advantages of ownership of the environment beyond our bodily limits but it has to be LIMITED and set up for some purpose that is universally agreed to. Governments are our non-violent means we also invented to negotiate what "ownerships" mean and are what assign these 'special' mechanisms in formal ways. Many think it is some 'right' but this can only hold if Nature itself had some superior means of setting consequences for those interferring in these claims as ABSOLUTE in some way.
Advocate mentioned the point about 'rent' as a temporary form of 'ownership' in this way. So is one's job where they are given an area of individual temporary control over some domain of activity. But no 'ownership' is universally granted ABSOLUTE power for all time. It is a PRIVILEGE that we as a society grant by "charter" to others with SPECIFIC limits (normally). Where the government is NOT itself 'owned' by the people, then the meaning of 'ownership' privilege can be set up unfairly and permit absolute forms of 'ownership'. But then such systems are not valid by anything but strict means of force that the owner-class decrees. However, in democratic forms where the people collectively 'own' it, then I think we need a MINIMAL means for each and every person to be permitted 'absolute' (like one's body, some right to have a place of shelter from the environment securely, and one's access to enough food and whatever other essentials of survival are needed). Then we need a MAXIMUM regarding how much any one person can have any 'absolute' forms of contingent control of the environment. There has to be clearly defined means of the variable domains that each of us can have TEMPORARY control. One who is fortune to 'own' some industry, it should, for instance, be limited to a kind of "management" role that they are obliged to control for the sake of the whole in some way, and only a trivial means of reward for such responsibility that provides sufficient reward where incentive is needed.
Regardless, it should not be permitted to 'pass on' ownership arbitrarily by private interest through what we call inheritance. Other than trivial sentimental gifts, the power to pass on one's beneficial wealth has to have the recognition that negative one's are forcefully passed on to all others without appropriate balance nor fairness. In fact, it causes things like racism and other biased '-isms' because who you pass on unique special favoritism to automatically would eventually set up favor to some class based on shallow self-interests, like ones' family or race or sex, etc. Most seem not to notice that if you favor one of your children with abnormal attention and benefits, while not directly easy to prove, it acts to NEGLECTFULLY abuse those children where there is a limit to resources. What you grant MORE to one, you leave LESS for the complement.
I think that there are some advantages of ownership of the environment beyond our bodily limits but it has to be LIMITED and set up for some purpose that is universally agreed to. Governments are our non-violent means we also invented to negotiate what "ownerships" mean and are what assign these 'special' mechanisms in formal ways. Many think it is some 'right' but this can only hold if Nature itself had some superior means of setting consequences for those interferring in these claims as ABSOLUTE in some way.
Advocate mentioned the point about 'rent' as a temporary form of 'ownership' in this way. So is one's job where they are given an area of individual temporary control over some domain of activity. But no 'ownership' is universally granted ABSOLUTE power for all time. It is a PRIVILEGE that we as a society grant by "charter" to others with SPECIFIC limits (normally). Where the government is NOT itself 'owned' by the people, then the meaning of 'ownership' privilege can be set up unfairly and permit absolute forms of 'ownership'. But then such systems are not valid by anything but strict means of force that the owner-class decrees. However, in democratic forms where the people collectively 'own' it, then I think we need a MINIMAL means for each and every person to be permitted 'absolute' (like one's body, some right to have a place of shelter from the environment securely, and one's access to enough food and whatever other essentials of survival are needed). Then we need a MAXIMUM regarding how much any one person can have any 'absolute' forms of contingent control of the environment. There has to be clearly defined means of the variable domains that each of us can have TEMPORARY control. One who is fortune to 'own' some industry, it should, for instance, be limited to a kind of "management" role that they are obliged to control for the sake of the whole in some way, and only a trivial means of reward for such responsibility that provides sufficient reward where incentive is needed.
Regardless, it should not be permitted to 'pass on' ownership arbitrarily by private interest through what we call inheritance. Other than trivial sentimental gifts, the power to pass on one's beneficial wealth has to have the recognition that negative one's are forcefully passed on to all others without appropriate balance nor fairness. In fact, it causes things like racism and other biased '-isms' because who you pass on unique special favoritism to automatically would eventually set up favor to some class based on shallow self-interests, like ones' family or race or sex, etc. Most seem not to notice that if you favor one of your children with abnormal attention and benefits, while not directly easy to prove, it acts to NEGLECTFULLY abuse those children where there is a limit to resources. What you grant MORE to one, you leave LESS for the complement.
Re: collective ownership
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=505070 time=1617127573 user_id=11118]
We need SOME minimal means of personal private space as our 'own'. The Earth (including private spaces) though is not 'owned' by anything. It is an artificial construct. Without 'laws' or 'direct force', what is [i]owned[/i] beyond one's literal own body and acts they use to survive, means that a claim is made beyond the normal extent of one's personal reach. It has to then be understood as some FORCEFUL declaration of the holder of the label, "owner", to their means of privileged control over some [i]property[/i] that is normally shared where not reserved for all other's equal access.
I think that there are some advantages of ownership of the environment beyond our bodily limits but it has to be LIMITED and set up for some purpose that is universally agreed to. Governments are our non-violent means we also invented to negotiate what "ownerships" mean and are what assign these 'special' mechanisms in formal ways. Many think it is some 'right' but this can only hold if Nature itself had some [i]superior[/i] means of setting consequences for those interferring in these claims as ABSOLUTE in some way.
Advocate mentioned the point about 'rent' as a temporary form of 'ownership' in this way. So is one's job where they are given an area of individual temporary control over some domain of activity. But no 'ownership' is universally granted ABSOLUTE power for all time. It is a PRIVILEGE that we as a society grant by "charter" to others with SPECIFIC limits (normally). Where the government is NOT itself 'owned' by the people, then the meaning of 'ownership' privilege can be set up unfairly and permit absolute forms of 'ownership'. But then such systems are not valid by anything but strict means of force that the owner-class decrees. However, in democratic forms where the people collectively 'own' it, then I think we need a MINIMAL means for each and every person to be permitted 'absolute' (like one's body, some right to have a place of shelter from the environment securely, and one's access to enough food and whatever other essentials of survival are needed). Then we need a MAXIMUM regarding how much any one person can have any 'absolute' forms of contingent control of the environment. There has to be clearly defined means of the variable domains that each of us can have TEMPORARY control. One who is fortune to 'own' some industry, it should, for instance, be limited to a kind of "management" role that they are obliged to control for the sake of the whole in some way, and only a trivial means of reward for such responsibility that provides sufficient reward where incentive is needed.
Regardless, it should not be permitted to 'pass on' ownership arbitrarily by private interest through what we call [i]inheritance[/i]. Other than trivial sentimental gifts, the power to pass on one's beneficial wealth has to have the recognition that negative one's are forcefully passed on to all others without appropriate balance nor fairness. In fact, it causes things like racism and other biased '-isms' because who you pass on unique special favoritism to automatically would eventually set up favor to some class based on shallow self-interests, like ones' family or race or sex, etc. Most seem not to notice that if you favor one of your children with abnormal attention and benefits, while not directly easy to prove, it acts to NEGLECTFULLY abuse those children where there is a limit to resources. What you grant MORE to one, you leave LESS for the complement.
[/quote]
I think you could get a lot further with that by starting with it in the context of legitimate v. actual. v. legal.
We need SOME minimal means of personal private space as our 'own'. The Earth (including private spaces) though is not 'owned' by anything. It is an artificial construct. Without 'laws' or 'direct force', what is [i]owned[/i] beyond one's literal own body and acts they use to survive, means that a claim is made beyond the normal extent of one's personal reach. It has to then be understood as some FORCEFUL declaration of the holder of the label, "owner", to their means of privileged control over some [i]property[/i] that is normally shared where not reserved for all other's equal access.
I think that there are some advantages of ownership of the environment beyond our bodily limits but it has to be LIMITED and set up for some purpose that is universally agreed to. Governments are our non-violent means we also invented to negotiate what "ownerships" mean and are what assign these 'special' mechanisms in formal ways. Many think it is some 'right' but this can only hold if Nature itself had some [i]superior[/i] means of setting consequences for those interferring in these claims as ABSOLUTE in some way.
Advocate mentioned the point about 'rent' as a temporary form of 'ownership' in this way. So is one's job where they are given an area of individual temporary control over some domain of activity. But no 'ownership' is universally granted ABSOLUTE power for all time. It is a PRIVILEGE that we as a society grant by "charter" to others with SPECIFIC limits (normally). Where the government is NOT itself 'owned' by the people, then the meaning of 'ownership' privilege can be set up unfairly and permit absolute forms of 'ownership'. But then such systems are not valid by anything but strict means of force that the owner-class decrees. However, in democratic forms where the people collectively 'own' it, then I think we need a MINIMAL means for each and every person to be permitted 'absolute' (like one's body, some right to have a place of shelter from the environment securely, and one's access to enough food and whatever other essentials of survival are needed). Then we need a MAXIMUM regarding how much any one person can have any 'absolute' forms of contingent control of the environment. There has to be clearly defined means of the variable domains that each of us can have TEMPORARY control. One who is fortune to 'own' some industry, it should, for instance, be limited to a kind of "management" role that they are obliged to control for the sake of the whole in some way, and only a trivial means of reward for such responsibility that provides sufficient reward where incentive is needed.
Regardless, it should not be permitted to 'pass on' ownership arbitrarily by private interest through what we call [i]inheritance[/i]. Other than trivial sentimental gifts, the power to pass on one's beneficial wealth has to have the recognition that negative one's are forcefully passed on to all others without appropriate balance nor fairness. In fact, it causes things like racism and other biased '-isms' because who you pass on unique special favoritism to automatically would eventually set up favor to some class based on shallow self-interests, like ones' family or race or sex, etc. Most seem not to notice that if you favor one of your children with abnormal attention and benefits, while not directly easy to prove, it acts to NEGLECTFULLY abuse those children where there is a limit to resources. What you grant MORE to one, you leave LESS for the complement.
[/quote]
I think you could get a lot further with that by starting with it in the context of legitimate v. actual. v. legal.