3 ms·

Well, Rousseau himself would say property is theft in not exactly those words From his discourse on inequality > The first man who, having enclosed a piece of

Well, Rousseau himself would say property is theft in not exactly those words From his discourse on inequality > The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying "this is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders; how much misery and horror the human race would have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "beware of listening to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no one!"

short_sells_poo 2y ago
Ultimately it comes down to force. The person with the pointiest sticks will likely be able to enforce their view about ownership over others. Taken quite literally, property is armed theft from the commons I guess. Unfortunately, it's tricky to do otherwise in a loosely organized swarm of barely tribal actors, because any peaceful society based on shared ownership will be prone to exploitation by malicious actors. It's basically a very large prisoner's dilemma: the global optimum would be to abolish private property, but as long as there are (enough) people around to exploit the situation for their own benefit (and to the massive detriment of everyone else), we have to stick to a sub-optimal system where everyone is worse off than the optimum.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > the global optimum would be to abolish private property The Soviet Union had this I believe, at least with buildings, and it didn't necessarily work out optimally.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    Certainly, and to be clear I'm not arguing for communism as a realistic system. It would be ideal in an ideal world without greed and selfishness. As long as those exist, we need to have a system that functions when the individual actors place their own interests far above the interests of others.
    - foobarbecue 2y ago
      I like to think of it biomimetically. Organisms and ecosystems have both competition and collaboration at every level of organization. If I were to design a government from scratch I think it would actually be relatively easy to know what's best nationalized and what's best privatized. Nationalize the things that you do not want to be driven by the profit incentive because they need to be fair and accessible to all (mass transit, healthcare, utilities, communication networks, science), and privatize everything else (entertainment, retail, food, services).
      - throw5673985 2y ago
        > privatize everything else [including] food yet: > Nationalize the things that [...] need to be fair and accessible to all Should food be accessible to all? Or is food production privatized because market economies more accurately meet consumer demand?
        short_sells_poo 2y ago
        Food is tricky. The food supply is one of the highest national security concerns IMO. Free market proponents love to go about saying that growing food should be left to countries and regions who do it well (due to climate and infrastructure), but if your country cannot grow enough food to supply it's own citizens' basic calorie needs, you are literally living on borrowed time. If the food supply is cut off for any reason, things go down very-very rapidly and the government has days, if not hours to sort things out before things descend into chaos. At the same time, governments do not have a good track record of running the food/ags industry. I guess a system where the government heavily subsidizes it and incentivises domestic production, but lets farmers do their thing is probably as good as we can do?
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Free market proponents love to go about saying that growing food should be left to countries and regions who do it well (due to climate and infrastructure), I think this is globalism rather than free market.
- nightpool 2y ago
  > Ultimately it comes down to force. The person with the pointiest sticks will likely be able to enforce their view about ownership over others. This is a common but simplistic view that ignored e.g. concerns about popular legitimacy and support that often lead to the downfall of strongman regimes. Many people think they can enforce their views of ownership over others, but find that it's not quite that simple when they try to put it into practice. That's why I mentioned the social contract.
- noduerme 2y ago
  How would the global optimum be to abolish private property when you just stated that without it we live in a swarm of barely tribal actors? The alternative to large-scale force is small-scale theft. Which is not so small-scale when you multiply it across every village and province. Ever been in the middle of a full social breakdown? Or a riot? Anyone who's seen what actual anarchy looks like would beg for some sort of order, even if it has to be imposed by force. It requires a very sheltered understanding of how the world actually works to think that anything good will come from unleashing chaos.
foobarbecue 2y ago
Wow, he sure can write! Proudhon literally wrote "property is theft" (see my other comments).
- mathieuh 2y ago
  I'm aware, I was quoting Rousseau because the person I was replying to mentioned the social contract which was an area of particular concern for Rousseau. I would recommend reading Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality if you're interested, it's very accessible.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    Thanks, I will!

short_sells_poo 2y ago

Ultimately it comes down to force. The person with the pointiest sticks will likely be able to enforce their view about ownership over others. Taken quite literally, property is armed theft from the commons I guess. Unfortunately, it's tricky to do otherwise in a loosely organized swarm of barely tribal actors, because any peaceful society based on shared ownership will be prone to exploitation by malicious actors. It's basically a very large prisoner's dilemma: the global optimum would be to abolish private property, but as long as there are (enough) people around to exploit the situation for their own benefit (and to the massive detriment of everyone else), we have to stick to a sub-optimal system where everyone is worse off than the optimum.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> the global optimum would be to abolish private property The Soviet Union had this I believe, at least with buildings, and it didn't necessarily work out optimally.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  Certainly, and to be clear I'm not arguing for communism as a realistic system. It would be ideal in an ideal world without greed and selfishness. As long as those exist, we need to have a system that functions when the individual actors place their own interests far above the interests of others.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    I like to think of it biomimetically. Organisms and ecosystems have both competition and collaboration at every level of organization. If I were to design a government from scratch I think it would actually be relatively easy to know what's best nationalized and what's best privatized. Nationalize the things that you do not want to be driven by the profit incentive because they need to be fair and accessible to all (mass transit, healthcare, utilities, communication networks, science), and privatize everything else (entertainment, retail, food, services).
    - throw5673985 2y ago
      > privatize everything else [including] food yet: > Nationalize the things that [...] need to be fair and accessible to all Should food be accessible to all? Or is food production privatized because market economies more accurately meet consumer demand?
      - short_sells_poo 2y ago
        Food is tricky. The food supply is one of the highest national security concerns IMO. Free market proponents love to go about saying that growing food should be left to countries and regions who do it well (due to climate and infrastructure), but if your country cannot grow enough food to supply it's own citizens' basic calorie needs, you are literally living on borrowed time. If the food supply is cut off for any reason, things go down very-very rapidly and the government has days, if not hours to sort things out before things descend into chaos. At the same time, governments do not have a good track record of running the food/ags industry. I guess a system where the government heavily subsidizes it and incentivises domestic production, but lets farmers do their thing is probably as good as we can do?
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Free market proponents love to go about saying that growing food should be left to countries and regions who do it well (due to climate and infrastructure), I think this is globalism rather than free market.
nightpool 2y ago
> Ultimately it comes down to force. The person with the pointiest sticks will likely be able to enforce their view about ownership over others. This is a common but simplistic view that ignored e.g. concerns about popular legitimacy and support that often lead to the downfall of strongman regimes. Many people think they can enforce their views of ownership over others, but find that it's not quite that simple when they try to put it into practice. That's why I mentioned the social contract.
noduerme 2y ago
How would the global optimum be to abolish private property when you just stated that without it we live in a swarm of barely tribal actors? The alternative to large-scale force is small-scale theft. Which is not so small-scale when you multiply it across every village and province. Ever been in the middle of a full social breakdown? Or a riot? Anyone who's seen what actual anarchy looks like would beg for some sort of order, even if it has to be imposed by force. It requires a very sheltered understanding of how the world actually works to think that anything good will come from unleashing chaos.

foobarbecue 2y ago

Wow, he sure can write! Proudhon literally wrote "property is theft" (see my other comments).

mathieuh 2y ago
I'm aware, I was quoting Rousseau because the person I was replying to mentioned the social contract which was an area of particular concern for Rousseau. I would recommend reading Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality if you're interested, it's very accessible.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Thanks, I will!