2 ms·

I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs. Humans seem to be wired via evolution to tolerate being cont

I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs. Humans seem to be wired via evolution to tolerate being controlled by higher status humans otherwise I'd expect confiscation of property to be a popular proposition in a world where high status people own the majority of property and wealth inequality keeps increasing. We'd have more discussions about where institutiins are serving us well and less about "those poor CEOs, think of their feelings" if we weren't seemingly wired to care about high status people's desires more than our own needs.

freeone3000 6y ago
The Communist Party of China follows the rules of the government they controlled perfectly well -- and have no problem winning elections. If you actually want property rights to be up for popular vote, it's important to understand that removal of property is going to be backed by the threat of violence by the state (which will occasionally need to be enacted). You will have companies removed for reasons that are "against the public interest" where you disagree with the actual actions. Democratic rule is simply mob rule by proxy.
- staticman2 6y ago
  China isn't a rights based democracy so that's neither here nor there. Sure, hypothetically if Mark Zuckerberg refuses to leave the Facebook building after being evicted of his Facebook ownership he could be physically removed by the police. Why this deserves our sympathy more than a sixteen year old physically arrested for smoking weed is not obvious- or even a tenant physically evicted for being unable to pay rent. Arresting people for drug crimes is treated as normal state violence and happily supported by Americans- but it seems people have evolved to sympathize with a high status billionaire over some kid commiting a victimless crime.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    The thing that makes a rights-based democracy "rights-based" is the idea that there are certain lines that are so important to individual liberty that society at large has chosen to not interfere with them. Traditionally, one of these rights is the right to private capital. It's the oldest right recorded in English common law. Giving up this right, even if it's purported to be in the interests of society at large, will remove part of the "rights-based" part of the rights-based democracy above. It's not something that should be done lightly. Civil forfeiture is rife for abuse, even in its current form.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      The right to bodily autonomy feels even more important to liberty than the right to capital, at least to me.
    - staticman2 6y ago
      I agree there should be a right to private capital- to an extent. But the fact you think a right to obtain billions of dollars and control the labor of 10 of thousands of workers is a fundemental right- when housing for the poor isn't- I think again goes to my point we've evolved to care more about high status rulers than ourselves. (I mean that literally, tribal humans or proto-humans murdered or outcompeted with less tribal humans at the whims of their tribal leaders and we are the result.) Anyway I am under no illusions that we are going to have a change in policy and stop caring about aristocrat's feeling more than our own well-being (Donald Trump is sad, let's storm some buildings you guys. Jeff Bezos treats warehouse workers bad- but he needs to be able to do that cause it would hurt his feelings if the workers ran the company instead.) So there's no reason to debate it other than intellectual fun.
gameman144 6y ago
> I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs. Banal, rules-based democracies still need a fundamental set of rights if they're to avoid instantly devolving to mob rule. I really don't want a rules-based democracy voting to kill me and my family, so I'm glad that I have the fundamental right not to be subject to that risk (even if it were supported by the majority.) One of the values that's pretty prevalent in the United States and a lot of other developed nations is a respect for property rights; if you worked for something, you get to keep it, even if other people would want it more. Both of these rights exist on a spectrum (e.g. the death penalty can override your right to life in the extreme case, and taxes can override your right to your property to a small extent), but by almost any measure putting your right to property to a vote is extremely far on the "not respecting property rights" side of the spectrum. Also, I have extremely little confidence that the best way to assuage our political divide is to introduce the perpetual threat of "the majority had better think that what you're doing is useful, otherwise we'll take everything you have." The rule of law means that sometimes things will arise that slip through the cracks in unintended ways. The solution to this is to fix those cracks and make the law more clearly define what's desired. If this makes a given business model non-viable, then so be it; that's the price of progress. I'd imagine that those is favor of the rule of law, though, can see the slippery slope of letting the mob vote on what do with the property of those who were following the law at the time.

freeone3000 6y ago

The Communist Party of China follows the rules of the government they controlled perfectly well -- and have no problem winning elections. If you actually want property rights to be up for popular vote, it's important to understand that removal of property is going to be backed by the threat of violence by the state (which will occasionally need to be enacted). You will have companies removed for reasons that are "against the public interest" where you disagree with the actual actions. Democratic rule is simply mob rule by proxy.

staticman2 6y ago
China isn't a rights based democracy so that's neither here nor there. Sure, hypothetically if Mark Zuckerberg refuses to leave the Facebook building after being evicted of his Facebook ownership he could be physically removed by the police. Why this deserves our sympathy more than a sixteen year old physically arrested for smoking weed is not obvious- or even a tenant physically evicted for being unable to pay rent. Arresting people for drug crimes is treated as normal state violence and happily supported by Americans- but it seems people have evolved to sympathize with a high status billionaire over some kid commiting a victimless crime.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  The thing that makes a rights-based democracy "rights-based" is the idea that there are certain lines that are so important to individual liberty that society at large has chosen to not interfere with them. Traditionally, one of these rights is the right to private capital. It's the oldest right recorded in English common law. Giving up this right, even if it's purported to be in the interests of society at large, will remove part of the "rights-based" part of the rights-based democracy above. It's not something that should be done lightly. Civil forfeiture is rife for abuse, even in its current form.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    The right to bodily autonomy feels even more important to liberty than the right to capital, at least to me.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    I agree there should be a right to private capital- to an extent. But the fact you think a right to obtain billions of dollars and control the labor of 10 of thousands of workers is a fundemental right- when housing for the poor isn't- I think again goes to my point we've evolved to care more about high status rulers than ourselves. (I mean that literally, tribal humans or proto-humans murdered or outcompeted with less tribal humans at the whims of their tribal leaders and we are the result.) Anyway I am under no illusions that we are going to have a change in policy and stop caring about aristocrat's feeling more than our own well-being (Donald Trump is sad, let's storm some buildings you guys. Jeff Bezos treats warehouse workers bad- but he needs to be able to do that cause it would hurt his feelings if the workers ran the company instead.) So there's no reason to debate it other than intellectual fun.

gameman144 6y ago

> I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs. Banal, rules-based democracies still need a fundamental set of rights if they're to avoid instantly devolving to mob rule. I really don't want a rules-based democracy voting to kill me and my family, so I'm glad that I have the fundamental right not to be subject to that risk (even if it were supported by the majority.) One of the values that's pretty prevalent in the United States and a lot of other developed nations is a respect for property rights; if you worked for something, you get to keep it, even if other people would want it more. Both of these rights exist on a spectrum (e.g. the death penalty can override your right to life in the extreme case, and taxes can override your right to your property to a small extent), but by almost any measure putting your right to property to a vote is extremely far on the "not respecting property rights" side of the spectrum. Also, I have extremely little confidence that the best way to assuage our political divide is to introduce the perpetual threat of "the majority had better think that what you're doing is useful, otherwise we'll take everything you have." The rule of law means that sometimes things will arise that slip through the cracks in unintended ways. The solution to this is to fix those cracks and make the law more clearly define what's desired. If this makes a given business model non-viable, then so be it; that's the price of progress. I'd imagine that those is favor of the rule of law, though, can see the slippery slope of letting the mob vote on what do with the property of those who were following the law at the time.