3 ms·
That has a lot of assumptions. You can argue the other way with having a sense of ownership and being responsible is what leads to higher quality in your surrou
by dfischer 7y ago
That has a lot of assumptions. You can argue the other way with having a sense of ownership and being responsible is what leads to higher quality in your surroundings.
Something something, fix broken windows.
- kaycebasques 7y agoI can see that. From personal experience, when I’ve been given the opportunity to own something, such as a project at work, I found a sense of pride in it that I wasn’t expecting. So I am suggesting that providing people the chance to own something can be a transformative experience.
- dfischer 7y agoA chance to "own" something is a very deep iceberg. Ownership needs to consider a lot of things from an economic perspective, a rights perspective (law), society, and so on. Basically, I guess I'm just saying – it's really complicated and just concluding giving away resources is missing the forest for the trees.
- kaycebasques 7y agoI probably didn’t provide enough nuance in my original comment. I think we’re in agreement that ownership can be a productive feeling. I agree that giving stuff away isn’t guaranteed to lead to a sense of ownership. The main idea I’m submitting here is that, if we can somehow give more people the opportunity to experience ownership, society will function better. Stuff like what we’re seeing in SF is less likely to happen. If we’re in agreement then the question is, how do we go about giving more opportunities for ownership in society?
- dfischer 7y agoI don’t think there’s a shortcut to a true sense of ownership. So I’d lean less on the welfare topology. I would lean heavily in making it more accessible to provide value to society. Setup technology that allows people to provide value to community and society as best as possible. That’s my high level thought which of course requires a lot of boiling down.