4 ms·

You're glossing over a subtle tautology, I think: "Deserving" is a weak form of property, socially but not legally compelling. When we say, "They deserve to hav

by Cushman 14y ago

You're glossing over a subtle tautology, I think: "Deserving" is a weak form of property, socially but not legally compelling. When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. The crucial question is, why do we feel they should have it? "It's theirs", "they earned it", "right to property"— these things are synonyms for the question. What are the real, underlying values that make us feel better when these "rights" are upheld, worse when they are ignored? Now, personally I don't believe that the utilitarian explanation is anything more than a rationalization; the real-world history of the global economy is a writhing mass of motives, incentives, morals and power relationships which we have no hope of unpacking, and which we have no reason to think have arrived at any optimal result. However, I do think analyzing the former gets you quite a bit closer to something describably true than any amount of arguing over the latter.

JoshTriplett 14y ago
> When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. True, but I never said that phrase, or any other tautological statement. I specifically mentioned the argument that doesn't talk about "deserving" at all, and in particular the argument that explicitly dismisses the idea that whoever would use it more efficiently deserves it more. As for the underlying values in question: "they earned it so they get to choose how to use it" comes fairly close, though I feel certain that better statements of that principle exist (preferably tabooing "earned"). (I've also intentionally left out the cases that raise extra complexity and social questions/conventions, like inheritance.) "Utilitiarian" is another term whose connotations you have to watch out for: whose utility? You've made the argument for overall social utility, but ignored the one for individual utility. In any case, I'm not looking to actually explore that argument in depth, mostly because all the arguments on all sides have been argued to death; I simply wanted to compliment you on the deconstruction-based argument, while mentioning another form of the argument that you didn't appear to have considered.

by Cushman 14y ago

JoshTriplett 14y ago

> When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. True, but I never said that phrase, or any other tautological statement. I specifically mentioned the argument that doesn't talk about "deserving" at all, and in particular the argument that explicitly dismisses the idea that whoever would use it more efficiently deserves it more. As for the underlying values in question: "they earned it so they get to choose how to use it" comes fairly close, though I feel certain that better statements of that principle exist (preferably tabooing "earned"). (I've also intentionally left out the cases that raise extra complexity and social questions/conventions, like inheritance.) "Utilitiarian" is another term whose connotations you have to watch out for: whose utility? You've made the argument for overall social utility, but ignored the one for individual utility. In any case, I'm not looking to actually explore that argument in depth, mostly because all the arguments on all sides have been argued to death; I simply wanted to compliment you on the deconstruction-based argument, while mentioning another form of the argument that you didn't appear to have considered.