Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. The exhibition of two excellences, besides, is visibly annihilated in such a state: first, temperance towards women (for it is an honourable action to abstain from another's wife for temperance sake); secondly, liberality in the matter of property. No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property.
Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence; men readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend-especially when someone is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due not to the absence of communism but to the wickedness of human nature. Indeed, we see that there is much more quarrelling among those who have all things in common, though there are not many of them when compared with the vast numbers who have private property. — Aristotle, Politics, II.5, tr. Jowett
Is it possible? Could it last if it happened? — frank
A society with no property might give unreasonably high rewards to the sociopaths, psychopaths and parasites. You can take anything without giving anything. Have what you want, give back nothing at all. Such a society would be stripped of its resources by leeches faster than you can say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all". — flannel jesus
Consider donuts. Who gets the last donut? If by common decree no one gets the last donut, then who gets the next-to-last donut? — tim wood
Ownership laws are taking the place of the chieftain when it comes to people who stray from the ideals. — frank
Yes, I believe it is, and that something of the kind has been practiced by groups in various settings since the beginning of people. It works in groups small enough to be personally connected, each to each, and doesn't seem to work in large, anonymous ones.Everything that's produced is pooled and shared. I'm wondering about whether this is something that dwells in the human potential or not. — frank
The kind in which every individual is valued and respected.If it's cultural, what kind of culture reinforces the idea. In what kind of culture does ownership become a ghost? — frank
Imagine some world of the future where people are picking up the pieces from some cataclysm and they develop a collective. No one owns anything. Everything that's produced is pooled and shared. I'm wondering about whether this is something that dwells in the human potential or not. — frank
Terrific story. :up:Folks might like to read 'The Dispossessed', by Ursula K LeGuin, for a plausible imagining of a cooperative anarchy. — unenlightened
I think property, not "ownership" (mine-ness), is optional – a venn diagram from the least artificial and essential social arrangement to the most artificial and inessential: personal property (one's own mindbody (re: responsibilities), clothes, tools / labor, leisure), communal property (commons), public property ('republic', city / town, roads / waterways), and private property ('codified' scarcity-re/production, ergo class-caste conflicts) – [personal [communal [public [ private ]]]].The background of the question is a kind of genealogy of ownership. — frank
Respect for personal property is not enshrined in nature, it is established cooperatively in human societies. In an emergency, the government will requisition whatever it deems to be required for the protection of the people, and that limitation to ownership will also be cooperatively established. It seems hard for some to understand that one cannot have ownership unless others recognise and respect that relation. — unenlightened
I think property, not "ownership" (mine-ness), is optional – a venn diagram from the least artificial and essential social arrangement to the most artificial and inessential: personal property (one's own mindbody (re: responsibilities), clothes, tools / labor, leisure), communal property (commons), public property ('republic', city / town, roads / waterways), and private property ('codified' scarcity-re/production, ergo class-caste conflicts) – [personal [communal [public [ private ]]]]. — 180 Proof
Why do some societies enshrine private property? — frank
Why would owning something mean someone was likely to take it from them? — flannel jesus
They say Lakota women built and "owned" their portable dwellings. I don't think that means they owned it as a protection from someone taking it from them.
The way you worded it makes it sound almost like ownership makes someone taking it MORE likely. — flannel jesus
And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. Before that, people weren't murdering, stabbing someone was just an "uninvited metallic guest". — flannel jesus
I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. — flannel jesus
Even apes have a sense of ownership. — flannel jesus
I suppose that's because you think the fish are yours, and not public property. — frank
Exactly, and I strongly suspect people felt that way about the shit they worked for, for as long as people have been working for shit. I don't think there's any point in homo sapiens history where someone is happy to lose their days work to a stranger for nothing. — flannel jesus
Which certainly proved historically true. There is also another aspect to amassing treasure: it had to come from somewhere - through somebody's effort, or somebody's loss - and those people are naturally motivated to take it back, along with maybe a strip of your hide.He was saying that when cities pile up riches, they're practically asking to be raided. — frank
Quite true. Hardly anyone is tempted to take another person's clothes or tent, unless they're in dire need of it. A mindful society makes sure that doesn't happen, simply by providing for all its members. Treasure amassing is partly a result of the lust for power. Once society is stratified enough to isolate its wealth under the control of a few people, it becomes the highest ambition to be one of those people - not the strongest, wisest, most skilled or best loved, but the richest. Another large part of amassing is compulsive or pre-emptive: the urge to grab everything you can before somebody else does. That's symptomatic of an indifferent society.I guess another way to put his point is that there is no theft until there is ownership. — frank
Yes, that's right. People have always killed one another in various mental states, for various reasons and by various methods. Some forms of killing were socially condoned, or even mandated (as in ritual sacrifice or dispatching a dangerous enemy) and some were forbidden and required atonement, restitution, treatment or banishment. Such cases of private killing were usually considered by a meeting of elders and the outcome decided case by case, as each such incident is unique.And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. — flannel jesus
↪frank Why would owning something mean someone was likely to take it from them? — flannel jesus
If you refuse to share and others are hungry, that's exactly what will happen. You can get upset, and a fragmented, selfish society will shrug and walk past you: "Finders keepers, losers weepers." That same society will send designated law-enforcers after the thief if he takes the fish from your kitchen. But a caring community would ask the one who took it why he thought his need was so much greater and yours, and ask you why you didn't offer a hungry compatriot some of your fish, then decide who is in the wrong.If I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. — flannel jesus
They can be quite protective of their food, especially treats, and whatever toy they happen find interesting at the moment. But once they're bored with the toy, it's fine for another ape to have a turn.Even apes have a sense of ownership. — flannel jesus
But before that, there was a point - a quite large splotch, in fact - when people were happy to work, in teams or individually at all the tasks required for the welfare of their community. That's the big difference: in a sharing society, you never work for a stranger (there aren't any) and you're never underpaid.I don't think there's any point in homo sapiens history where someone is happy to lose their days work to a stranger for nothing. — flannel jesus
But before that, there was a point - a quite large splotch, in fact - when people were happy to work, in teams or individually at all the tasks required for the welfare of their community. — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.