3 ms·

If clear ownership existed beforehand, then the conflict would never have occurred. Now that clear ownership will be established, all future conflict can be avo

If clear ownership existed beforehand, then the conflict would never have occurred. Now that clear ownership will be established, all future conflict can be avoided or quickly solved. Ownership, regardless of who owns it provides a path to resolution.

sangnoir 10y ago
In societies that value social cohesion: the conflict can be avoided in a manner that is not 'zero-sum' in the manner property rights are. Without passing judgement on pros or cons; if someone from a foreign land xomes to you and insists that you adopt their ways of dealing with ownership and abandon your own, that is colonialism. Rephrasing GP with emphasis: > Such a need for strict definition of ownership (beyond any natural meaning) is the actual colonialism as felt by the indigenous
mindslight 10y ago
You're missing the point that the framework of exclusive ownership is not universally applicable. Try applying your reasoning to eg administration of the atmosphere. The same type of colonization is happening to our information environment via the imposition of "imaginary property".
- pc86 10y ago
  > Try applying your reasoning to eg administration of the atmosphere. You mean in terms of airspace? Because that's a thing but it ends at space, which nobody owns. It's a system that works pretty well.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    I meant in regards to consuming oxygen - privatization via strict property rights would imply the bottling of it all, to everyone's detriment. But airspace is a good example too of something that has not been formally divided up with property rights. We would only say that USG "owns" the airspace as a way of understanding within the malapplied framework - it doesn't accurately describe the situation on its own merits. (And FWIW this non-ownership is starting to show its cracks with the advent of high density batteries and cheap brushless motor controllers ("drones"). This situation in Hawaii seems like the equivalent of an airport suing to gain exclusive title over all airspace it currently mediates, trampling over all the rest of the existing airspace users)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sangnoir 10y ago

In societies that value social cohesion: the conflict can be avoided in a manner that is not 'zero-sum' in the manner property rights are. Without passing judgement on pros or cons; if someone from a foreign land xomes to you and insists that you adopt their ways of dealing with ownership and abandon your own, that is colonialism. Rephrasing GP with emphasis: > Such a need for strict definition of ownership (beyond any natural meaning) is the actual colonialism as felt by the indigenous

mindslight 10y ago

You're missing the point that the framework of exclusive ownership is not universally applicable. Try applying your reasoning to eg administration of the atmosphere. The same type of colonization is happening to our information environment via the imposition of "imaginary property".

pc86 10y ago
> Try applying your reasoning to eg administration of the atmosphere. You mean in terms of airspace? Because that's a thing but it ends at space, which nobody owns. It's a system that works pretty well.
- mindslight 10y ago
  I meant in regards to consuming oxygen - privatization via strict property rights would imply the bottling of it all, to everyone's detriment. But airspace is a good example too of something that has not been formally divided up with property rights. We would only say that USG "owns" the airspace as a way of understanding within the malapplied framework - it doesn't accurately describe the situation on its own merits. (And FWIW this non-ownership is starting to show its cracks with the advent of high density batteries and cheap brushless motor controllers ("drones"). This situation in Hawaii seems like the equivalent of an airport suing to gain exclusive title over all airspace it currently mediates, trampling over all the rest of the existing airspace users)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]