4 ms·

Your analysis prompts a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from me which I'm going to attempt to squelch. :) First, property as a result of superstition? Really? Thi

Your analysis prompts a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from me which I'm going to attempt to squelch. :) First, property as a result of superstition? Really? This is the first I've ever heard of this. In fact, most primitive societies have no concept of property -- this is why they are primitive. "Culture Cult" does a great job expanding on this argument. Second, a dichotomy between energy and property? Really? So you can't be somebody who has a lot of energy and wants to smash doors down and also somebody who likes to own stuff? Sounds like a conclusion you'd draw from various discussions on MPAA and BitTorrent, but not one that would work for much besides that. Let's say it's fifty thousand years ago and I live in the forest with my clan. I take a flint and make a wood carving. At this point I own nothing -- so if it's nice, the alpha male or one of his females takes it from me. So I stop making carvings. Somewhere down the line, at least in Western Civilization, I make the same carving and get to keep it. This is the beginning of civilization, the basis for all progress: both the naming of property as the product of somebody's energy and the common belief that they get to keep it. Property is stored energy (in your terms). Once it's stored we can trade it or pass it around without having to expend energy again. So progress begins to accumulate. Energy can either create property or not. Of course I can't keep everything I make; the clan needs extra arrowheads or whatever in order to fight off another clan. So I share -- or I'm taxed. However you put it, I give up some of my property, some of my "stored energy" in order to benefit the greater good. There is a tension here, and it's a good tension. Where you come down on most political issues boils down to whether you're a "sharer" or a "creator/trader" You can be both, of course, but your answer to this tension defines your sensibilities. Not some kind of energy/property thing. I love ad-hoc analysis. Your comment strikes me as an informed comment of somebody who has kind of floated along in the various property discussions we tech heads have without taking much time at all to dive deeper (apologies if that sounds condescending.) Might want to up your game a bit. Using your terms, energy without persistent property is a fool's game. Yes, you can trade MP3 tunes all day on the net and it doesn't hurt the economy much. You can participate in the FOSS movement, providing somebody else a bigger piece of property down the road for less effort -- a great cause indeed. But the reason you can act in such an idealized manner is that you're resting on other more fundamental principles of property. They don't come and take your house or computer any more, and the things you create you get to either choose to share or not. Because we rest so solidly on the foundations of property, we begin to forget they are there. Seriously, this property rights equals don't-change-things and religious superstition is way whacked.

michaelochurch 14y ago
"Property" is quirky word, and I now wish I could think of a better word to represent what I'm talking about, because the points you've raised are valid. Property rights are a great thing in moderation. There's a social need for people to have the right to own the products of their own labor. Where property becomes a systemic disease when property relations persist for longer (and allowing larger concentrations than are reasonable) than serve any purpose. If a person who works hard gets rich, great. If his moronic, undeserving, spoiled great-grandchildren are rich and powerful and still call the shots in society, not great. There needs to be a way of storing Energy, as you said, but it needs to be limited and kept reasonable. Infinite transferability of property rights is a demonstrated disaster. For example, private land ownership (at scale, in non-agrarian settings) is pretty much illegitimate. I'm not saying that it's illegitimate for a person to own a small house in the woods on an acre of land. That's fine. I'm talking about what happens at scale. Private land ownership was necessary at one time because it gave people an incentive to use the land properly, but the senseless wealth transfer we see in, e.g., Manhattan is just perverse. People like me (hard-working, ambitious, energetic, talented) are the fucking reason people want to live (or work, or employ people) here... we fucking make cities... and yet, instead of thanks for making this place great, we get the obligation to pay immense sums of money in rent. I would actually support a government solution to the urban land problem. Since the total price is going to be high anyway (because of the high demand for housing) I'd rather see it go into taxes that make the place better-- better schools, more and nicer parks-- than into the already bloated coffers of multimillionaire real estate owners. The religion aspect: private land ownership pretty much emerged out of ancestor veneration. Land "ownership" started at the ability to defend land, which was usually the job of the chieftain or king or alpha male. However, being people, they died. If their descendants weren't strong or persuasive or wily enough to defend the land claim through ordinary means, they started using supernatural claims, based on the idea that the ancestor still existed and could enforce those claims supernaturally. (Over generations, these ancestors became gods.) This was almost certainly not the only religious impulse, and it's far from true that all religion was borne of this desire, but it's a strong and consistent strain of the impulse to corrupt religion toward political aims.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

"Property" is quirky word, and I now wish I could think of a better word to represent what I'm talking about, because the points you've raised are valid. Property rights are a great thing in moderation. There's a social need for people to have the right to own the products of their own labor. Where property becomes a systemic disease when property relations persist for longer (and allowing larger concentrations than are reasonable) than serve any purpose. If a person who works hard gets rich, great. If his moronic, undeserving, spoiled great-grandchildren are rich and powerful and still call the shots in society, not great. There needs to be a way of storing Energy, as you said, but it needs to be limited and kept reasonable. Infinite transferability of property rights is a demonstrated disaster. For example, private land ownership (at scale, in non-agrarian settings) is pretty much illegitimate. I'm not saying that it's illegitimate for a person to own a small house in the woods on an acre of land. That's fine. I'm talking about what happens at scale. Private land ownership was necessary at one time because it gave people an incentive to use the land properly, but the senseless wealth transfer we see in, e.g., Manhattan is just perverse. People like me (hard-working, ambitious, energetic, talented) are the fucking reason people want to live (or work, or employ people) here... we fucking make cities... and yet, instead of thanks for making this place great, we get the obligation to pay immense sums of money in rent. I would actually support a government solution to the urban land problem. Since the total price is going to be high anyway (because of the high demand for housing) I'd rather see it go into taxes that make the place better-- better schools, more and nicer parks-- than into the already bloated coffers of multimillionaire real estate owners. The religion aspect: private land ownership pretty much emerged out of ancestor veneration. Land "ownership" started at the ability to defend land, which was usually the job of the chieftain or king or alpha male. However, being people, they died. If their descendants weren't strong or persuasive or wily enough to defend the land claim through ordinary means, they started using supernatural claims, based on the idea that the ancestor still existed and could enforce those claims supernaturally. (Over generations, these ancestors became gods.) This was almost certainly not the only religious impulse, and it's far from true that all religion was borne of this desire, but it's a strong and consistent strain of the impulse to corrupt religion toward political aims.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago