3 ms·
on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along, the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. owne
by originalcopying 4y ago
on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along,
the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade.
In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger.
Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.
- SuoDuanDao 4y agoDo you have an alternative to suggest? Under most of human history the chosen elites inherited their positions from an ancestor who won an important war. Capitalism may not be an even playing field but the process that lets Elon Musk build landing Rockets is an order of magnitude more even than the process that let Kuresh build pyramids. Is there a model that might be more even still?
- originalcopying 4y agonevermind
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoTotally agree. The idea that ideas/bits can be owned is a slippery slope with bad policy at the bottom. Maybe it was once necessary as a sort of training wheels for innovation, but it has long since become more of a drag than it's worth.
- SuoDuanDao 4y agoAh, that's fair. I formulate a similar observation by saying that digital assets inhabit a post-scarcity economy which doesn't work the same as a resource-based scarcity one, and using the same money for both requires more suspension of disbelief than most of us are capable of.