7 ms·

"there should be no commons." Heh, I fully get that that's just one person's opinion on some internet site, but....when I was struck when I read that last line

by Frondo 11y ago

"there should be no commons." Heh, I fully get that that's just one person's opinion on some internet site, but....when I was struck when I read that last line at how dismal a world it would be to live in, if we had to view literally all our engagement with the world through the lens of the transaction. Going for a walk? (Are there sidewalks anymore?) Have you negotiated with each individual sidewalk owner for right of passage? No? Well, then, use the street instead. Oh, forgot to renew your street use card? Guess you're stuck, unless your buddy lends you something to get to the private park nearby. Lucky thing you saved some extra breathable air coupons for the exertion you'll expend on the pickup basketball game. No commons, after all. I get it, the dude's handle is "ancap". Still, I'm pretty grateful that this is a pretty fringe view, especially when he lays it out so bare, "no commons."

ancap 11y ago
You're being facetious but I will address a few of your points regardless. >Going for a walk? (Are there sidewalks anymore?) Have you negotiated with each individual sidewalk owner for right of passage? If you like walking around your neighborhood, then you'd probably live in a neighborhood where you'd either have ownership rights or an easement to walk around a bit. If you like walking around at work, you'll probably want to work somewhere that has those opportunities available. Around businesses? Obviously every business can make their own rules about their property but I would guess most businesses would welcome people, potential customers, walking in front of their store. As for roads I will let the reader research that out; there's been plenty written on private roads. Private roads predate our current public road system so I'm not sure what's so unfathomable about them. >Lucky thing you saved some extra breathable air coupons Air is probably too abundant for people to want to try to commercialize. It would be a failing business. >I was struck when I read that last line at how dismal a world it would be to live in It's unfortunate that you lack the imagination. In the past several centuries we have seen a level of personal freedom which is unprecedented. With that increased freedom we have the highest standard of living, ever. Now when someone comes along and theorizes on how we might increase that freedom you seem to fear the possibility of change--like the slave afraid of what's beyond his plantation. Luckily, this isn't really written for you. There will be those who will read this and wonder "Could we really make private roads work?", they will do the research and come to their own conclusion. You may think this fringe, and it may be, but it does not take long for the fringe to grow.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "It's unfortunate that you lack the imagination. In the past several centuries we have seen a level of personal freedom which is unprecedented. With that increased freedom we have the highest standard of living, ever. Now when someone comes along and theorizes on how we might increase that freedom you seem to fear the possibility of change--like the slave afraid of what's beyond his plantation." Except you're not theorizing on how to increase freedom. You're theorizing on how to carve people into separate little boxes. There is no freedom whatsoever there. Only servitude to the corporate masters who would control things.
  - ancap 11y ago
    >There is no freedom whatsoever there. Only servitude to the corporate masters who would control things. Source?
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, that's just it. It doesn't seem more free to me to have to think about getting out my wallet each time I go for a walk...or negotiating a series of easements all along my planned walk to the corner store! It seems like taking away all common resources (land, air, though ancap says air would remain common) just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world. Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time. Telling me that suddenly I have to do it for literally everything, and that's an increase of freedom, that makes no sense.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >air, though ancap says air would remain common I said no such thing. I said it is too abundant to commercialize. It can still be owned. >just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world. If everything was made public (communism) you could be free from a vast number of other mental burdens which we are currently plagued with. I don't buy it. We have a system around us now with all sorts of burdens and processes that are just part of life (you mean I have to stop through the checkout line before leaving the store--oh the horror of those evil capitalists who are trying to enslave us!). People adapt and are used to the system they are in. >Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time. Yet you do this already. I would wager a lot of your leisure time is spent on the private property of others, playing by their rules. Even the websites you go to and the video games you play have their rules and terms of service.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mturmon 11y ago
Well said. There's a neat section of the highly enjoyable book Wall St. by Doug Henwood (free at http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/WallStreet.pdf http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/WallStreet.pdf) which discusses why "the firm" exists. Basically turning your "going for a walk" scenario back onto the corporate world like so: Why is it that companies with fixed payrolls, buildings, etc., exist? In a fully marketized world, we would contract, daily, with providers for all services, including day-to-day secretarial services, copying services, coding, document and report production, research, everything. Starting at page 249: "In a famous paper that was largely responsible for his winning of the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics, Ronald H. Coase ... posed the question, largely unasked in classical economics, of why firms exist. [...] Not every aspect of economic activity can be encompassed by the price system. [...] In such cases, the price system hardly enters the picture. Or, in Coase’s concise definition, “the distinguishing mark of the firm is the supersession of the price mechanism.” But under capitalism, the scope of conscious planning rarely extends beyond a firm’s boundaries..." The whole section is well worth reading. Henwood engages many objections of armchair economists.
- gozur88 11y ago
  >Why is it that companies with fixed payrolls, buildings, etc., exist? In a fully marketized world, we would contract, daily, with providers for all services, including day-to-day secretarial services, copying services, coding, document and report production, research, everything. I don't find that compelling at all. There's no reason to think pricing needs to be done daily, or that cost can't be aggregated. You could only consider this the "supersession of the price mechanism" if you believe your time has no value.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    I suggest reading the excerpt I pointed to. It's worthwhile. As I mentioned, Henwood addresses obvious points like the one you raised.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      Granted, I didn't read the whole book, but I don't see the point addressed anywhere in that section. All I see is unsupported assertions about "power structures".

by Frondo 11y ago

ancap 11y ago

You're being facetious but I will address a few of your points regardless. >Going for a walk? (Are there sidewalks anymore?) Have you negotiated with each individual sidewalk owner for right of passage? If you like walking around your neighborhood, then you'd probably live in a neighborhood where you'd either have ownership rights or an easement to walk around a bit. If you like walking around at work, you'll probably want to work somewhere that has those opportunities available. Around businesses? Obviously every business can make their own rules about their property but I would guess most businesses would welcome people, potential customers, walking in front of their store. As for roads I will let the reader research that out; there's been plenty written on private roads. Private roads predate our current public road system so I'm not sure what's so unfathomable about them. >Lucky thing you saved some extra breathable air coupons Air is probably too abundant for people to want to try to commercialize. It would be a failing business. >I was struck when I read that last line at how dismal a world it would be to live in It's unfortunate that you lack the imagination. In the past several centuries we have seen a level of personal freedom which is unprecedented. With that increased freedom we have the highest standard of living, ever. Now when someone comes along and theorizes on how we might increase that freedom you seem to fear the possibility of change--like the slave afraid of what's beyond his plantation. Luckily, this isn't really written for you. There will be those who will read this and wonder "Could we really make private roads work?", they will do the research and come to their own conclusion. You may think this fringe, and it may be, but it does not take long for the fringe to grow.

st3v3r 11y ago
"It's unfortunate that you lack the imagination. In the past several centuries we have seen a level of personal freedom which is unprecedented. With that increased freedom we have the highest standard of living, ever. Now when someone comes along and theorizes on how we might increase that freedom you seem to fear the possibility of change--like the slave afraid of what's beyond his plantation." Except you're not theorizing on how to increase freedom. You're theorizing on how to carve people into separate little boxes. There is no freedom whatsoever there. Only servitude to the corporate masters who would control things.
- ancap 11y ago
  >There is no freedom whatsoever there. Only servitude to the corporate masters who would control things. Source?
- Frondo 11y ago
  Well, that's just it. It doesn't seem more free to me to have to think about getting out my wallet each time I go for a walk...or negotiating a series of easements all along my planned walk to the corner store! It seems like taking away all common resources (land, air, though ancap says air would remain common) just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world. Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time. Telling me that suddenly I have to do it for literally everything, and that's an increase of freedom, that makes no sense.
  - ancap 11y ago
    >air, though ancap says air would remain common I said no such thing. I said it is too abundant to commercialize. It can still be owned. >just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world. If everything was made public (communism) you could be free from a vast number of other mental burdens which we are currently plagued with. I don't buy it. We have a system around us now with all sorts of burdens and processes that are just part of life (you mean I have to stop through the checkout line before leaving the store--oh the horror of those evil capitalists who are trying to enslave us!). People adapt and are used to the system they are in. >Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time. Yet you do this already. I would wager a lot of your leisure time is spent on the private property of others, playing by their rules. Even the websites you go to and the video games you play have their rules and terms of service.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mturmon 11y ago

Well said. There's a neat section of the highly enjoyable book Wall St. by Doug Henwood (free at http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/WallStreet.pdf http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/WallStreet.pdf) which discusses why "the firm" exists. Basically turning your "going for a walk" scenario back onto the corporate world like so: Why is it that companies with fixed payrolls, buildings, etc., exist? In a fully marketized world, we would contract, daily, with providers for all services, including day-to-day secretarial services, copying services, coding, document and report production, research, everything. Starting at page 249: "In a famous paper that was largely responsible for his winning of the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics, Ronald H. Coase ... posed the question, largely unasked in classical economics, of why firms exist. [...] Not every aspect of economic activity can be encompassed by the price system. [...] In such cases, the price system hardly enters the picture. Or, in Coase’s concise definition, “the distinguishing mark of the firm is the supersession of the price mechanism.” But under capitalism, the scope of conscious planning rarely extends beyond a firm’s boundaries..." The whole section is well worth reading. Henwood engages many objections of armchair economists.

gozur88 11y ago
>Why is it that companies with fixed payrolls, buildings, etc., exist? In a fully marketized world, we would contract, daily, with providers for all services, including day-to-day secretarial services, copying services, coding, document and report production, research, everything. I don't find that compelling at all. There's no reason to think pricing needs to be done daily, or that cost can't be aggregated. You could only consider this the "supersession of the price mechanism" if you believe your time has no value.
- mturmon 11y ago
  I suggest reading the excerpt I pointed to. It's worthwhile. As I mentioned, Henwood addresses obvious points like the one you raised.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Granted, I didn't read the whole book, but I don't see the point addressed anywhere in that section. All I see is unsupported assertions about "power structures".