4 ms·

> Land used to exist without a monetary cost to access it. That was the natural way of things prior to the private property system and monetary system. We creat

> Land used to exist without a monetary cost to access it. That was the natural way of things prior to the private property system and monetary system. We created poverty as we know it. This is silly. First of all, only wealth can be created or destroyed, not poverty, which is the absence of wealth. My ape ancestor swinging from a tree without easy access to food, clothing, shelter or medicine is poorer than I am, full stop. Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources, usually at the behest of corrupt, tyrannical or murderous leaders. Third of all, the existence of a monetary cost or private property is moot when it comes to defining ownership. An eagle doesn't use money or property laws to own his nest, but it's not like any other eagle can use it without cost.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Not to mention that access to land was fiercely defended by highly territorial tribes that fought wars of conquest and destruction against each other. This is not dissimilar to the behaviour of apes and large carnivores today. Edit: To elaborate, "civilization" the way I see it has simply put the guardrails of due process around these things. We're still nakedly competing with each other, and in-groups are often bent on the destruction of out-groups. We just have laws and courts to make sure things don't get too far out of hand. It's peaceful coexistence not mass cooperation.
goodpoint 4y ago
> only wealth can be created or destroyed, not poverty, which is the absence of wealth This is plain false. Your ape ancestor was born with free access to trees, fruits etc. Take away that and you created poverty. > there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned Wrong again. The ape is a good example.
- bhhaskin 4y ago
  Apes are highly territorial and aggressive.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    ...which only proves my point. They are territorial, like many other animals, and they don't pay rent.
    - bhhaskin 4y ago
      But we also don't fight the landlord or other tenants to the death for an apartment. And that isn't even getting into the quality of life.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        Maybe we should start. /s EDIT: Added /s in case it wasn't obvious...
        baggy_trough 4y ago
        To avoid being a "planet full of assholes" by working and buying things, we should go back to killing people to take their territory?
    - stickfigure 4y ago
      They fight over that "free" territory and when they lose, they die. Property rights, money, and rent are a strictly superior solution, especially among billions of apes.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        And yet it still proves my point, which is pretty much the same an TFA. Defending a territory with your life might be stressful and I never claimed it's good life but it something any animal can do without having to go against some other animal that inherited vast land from their ancestor. TFA is pretty clear and yes some people here are trying very hard not to see the point.
braingenious 4y ago
I like how your only analogies for different material conditions are those of animals. “Things are better for me than they were before humankind literally existed” is such a hilariously meaningless thing to say. Why not go back further? Things are better now than they were before the earth’s surface cooled and formed a crust.
- mech987 4y ago
  It is a comparison in the same spirit as the original article.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    The original article does not compare humans to animals. It is an article about humans and different ways that we can structure societies. It would be utterly meaningless cruft to point out that things are better for humans than they were before the big bang.
dbingham 4y ago
> Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources, usually at the behest of corrupt, tyrannical or murderous leaders. The article wasn't arguing that a paradise of communal resource sharing with out limitations has ever existed. It was arguing that property wasn't the limitation and that people had access to the basics they needed to survive. And there are many, many examples of societies that existed where resources were communally shared and every one had access to the things they needed. Many of which involved various methods of communal decision making as well. This idea that humanity's state of nature is barbarous, brutal competition is an a historical myth that has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of the powerful.
- EricE 4y ago
  >and every one had access to the things they needed right up until their neighbors waltzed over and took it from them. Talk about rose colored glasses!
  - dbingham 4y ago
    Sure, there was conflict between societies. But again, this is an exaggerated view of just how much there was. I haven't seen many studies quantifying it. But given the sheer scale of damage conflicts today are capable of generating, I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now. I think we've definitely made gains in peace and security, but I also think those gains are frequently drastically exaggerated. My point isn't that the past was some rose colored time. Only that false assumptions about human nature are frequently used justify deeply harmful policies and institutions. And that many people speak about how humans behaved in "that past" with very little actual anthropological or historical knowledge.
    - bmmayer1 4y ago
      > I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now It is, in fact, much safer to be alive today than any other point in history. And a much lower chance of dying from violence due to other humans. In fact there's a whole book about this if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonathankoren 4y ago
It’s a bit odd that you ignore the existence of The Commons is a long historic norm, and then turn around then dismiss The Commons as being privately owned, rather than collectively owned and operated. This is an ahistorical understanding, that misinterprets economics, history, and sociology.

thegrimmest 4y ago

Not to mention that access to land was fiercely defended by highly territorial tribes that fought wars of conquest and destruction against each other. This is not dissimilar to the behaviour of apes and large carnivores today. Edit: To elaborate, "civilization" the way I see it has simply put the guardrails of due process around these things. We're still nakedly competing with each other, and in-groups are often bent on the destruction of out-groups. We just have laws and courts to make sure things don't get too far out of hand. It's peaceful coexistence not mass cooperation.

goodpoint 4y ago

> only wealth can be created or destroyed, not poverty, which is the absence of wealth This is plain false. Your ape ancestor was born with free access to trees, fruits etc. Take away that and you created poverty. > there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned Wrong again. The ape is a good example.

bhhaskin 4y ago
Apes are highly territorial and aggressive.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  ...which only proves my point. They are territorial, like many other animals, and they don't pay rent.
  - bhhaskin 4y ago
    But we also don't fight the landlord or other tenants to the death for an apartment. And that isn't even getting into the quality of life.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Maybe we should start. /s EDIT: Added /s in case it wasn't obvious...
      - baggy_trough 4y ago
        To avoid being a "planet full of assholes" by working and buying things, we should go back to killing people to take their territory?
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    They fight over that "free" territory and when they lose, they die. Property rights, money, and rent are a strictly superior solution, especially among billions of apes.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      And yet it still proves my point, which is pretty much the same an TFA. Defending a territory with your life might be stressful and I never claimed it's good life but it something any animal can do without having to go against some other animal that inherited vast land from their ancestor. TFA is pretty clear and yes some people here are trying very hard not to see the point.

braingenious 4y ago

I like how your only analogies for different material conditions are those of animals. “Things are better for me than they were before humankind literally existed” is such a hilariously meaningless thing to say. Why not go back further? Things are better now than they were before the earth’s surface cooled and formed a crust.

mech987 4y ago
It is a comparison in the same spirit as the original article.
- braingenious 4y ago
  The original article does not compare humans to animals. It is an article about humans and different ways that we can structure societies. It would be utterly meaningless cruft to point out that things are better for humans than they were before the big bang.

dbingham 4y ago

> Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources, usually at the behest of corrupt, tyrannical or murderous leaders. The article wasn't arguing that a paradise of communal resource sharing with out limitations has ever existed. It was arguing that property wasn't the limitation and that people had access to the basics they needed to survive. And there are many, many examples of societies that existed where resources were communally shared and every one had access to the things they needed. Many of which involved various methods of communal decision making as well. This idea that humanity's state of nature is barbarous, brutal competition is an a historical myth that has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of the powerful.

EricE 4y ago
>and every one had access to the things they needed right up until their neighbors waltzed over and took it from them. Talk about rose colored glasses!
- dbingham 4y ago
  Sure, there was conflict between societies. But again, this is an exaggerated view of just how much there was. I haven't seen many studies quantifying it. But given the sheer scale of damage conflicts today are capable of generating, I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now. I think we've definitely made gains in peace and security, but I also think those gains are frequently drastically exaggerated. My point isn't that the past was some rose colored time. Only that false assumptions about human nature are frequently used justify deeply harmful policies and institutions. And that many people speak about how humans behaved in "that past" with very little actual anthropological or historical knowledge.
  - bmmayer1 4y ago
    > I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now It is, in fact, much safer to be alive today than any other point in history. And a much lower chance of dying from violence due to other humans. In fact there's a whole book about this if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jonathankoren 4y ago

It’s a bit odd that you ignore the existence of The Commons is a long historic norm, and then turn around then dismiss The Commons as being privately owned, rather than collectively owned and operated. This is an ahistorical understanding, that misinterprets economics, history, and sociology.