3 ms·

I think this is a sign of the times we live in. Innovation today seems to have shifted towards serving the owning class.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Shifted? When was it different?
- hezralig 4y ago
  It is always amusing talking to Americans about the Luddite movement. So ,any seem to think they were anti-technology when in fact they were mostly artisans who embraced technology save for when the ownership class started to exploit their labor.
user3939382 4y ago
And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property. I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them. Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.
- e_i_pi_2 4y ago
  I can easily see the argument for owning personal property like a phone, but how can someone have a true ownership claim over land? For personal property there is a production chain with labor that went into the item, but for land it's just out there and at some point someone decided they should be able to restrict what other people do in some area. If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual - a government is just a collection of individuals acting together
  - user3939382 4y ago
    > If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.
    - e_i_pi_2 4y ago
      My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
      - user3939382 4y ago
        > it's not the same as personal property Do you mean because it's immobile? > it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare. > the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.
        4y ago
- ladyattis 4y ago
  >And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property. My theory is that as profits decline due to the tendency of markets to reach equilibrium with respect to products/services supplied that capital owners will begin to reintroduce pre-capitalist norms and practices such as landlordism as these can sustain revenues to their liking as you renter won't have any ownership rights to contest their actions. It means they can raise rental rates anytime in the majority of cases and then just evict you from or repossess what was rented. Kind of like feudalism but without the fancy hats and titles.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Shifted? When was it different?

hezralig 4y ago
It is always amusing talking to Americans about the Luddite movement. So ,any seem to think they were anti-technology when in fact they were mostly artisans who embraced technology save for when the ownership class started to exploit their labor.

user3939382 4y ago

And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property. I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them. Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.

e_i_pi_2 4y ago
I can easily see the argument for owning personal property like a phone, but how can someone have a true ownership claim over land? For personal property there is a production chain with labor that went into the item, but for land it's just out there and at some point someone decided they should be able to restrict what other people do in some area. If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual - a government is just a collection of individuals acting together
- user3939382 4y ago
  > If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.
  - e_i_pi_2 4y ago
    My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
    - user3939382 4y ago
      > it's not the same as personal property Do you mean because it's immobile? > it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare. > the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.
      - 4y ago
ladyattis 4y ago
>And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property. My theory is that as profits decline due to the tendency of markets to reach equilibrium with respect to products/services supplied that capital owners will begin to reintroduce pre-capitalist norms and practices such as landlordism as these can sustain revenues to their liking as you renter won't have any ownership rights to contest their actions. It means they can raise rental rates anytime in the majority of cases and then just evict you from or repossess what was rented. Kind of like feudalism but without the fancy hats and titles.