3 ms·
I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans
by scott_s 12y ago
I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now.
However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property.
This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.
- rayiner 12y agoMy problem with calling property a "natural" or "moral" right is that it obscures a really fundamental dynamic, which is the separation of possession from the ability to defend those possessions. A separation achieved by collective force suppressing the natural dominion of the strong over the weak.[1] The lion doesn't feel moral compunction for "stealing" the hyena's kill, and why should he? He is just using his natural gifts, just as a programmer might use his natural gift of intellect. [1] One might be tempted to invoke private security at this point, but one wonders whether, in a world without law, anybody who can defend say Mark Zuckerberg's wealth has any reason to take orders from Mark Zuckerberg, at least for very long.
- tcoppi 12y agoA dynamic that is explored very well in the final season of Breaking Bad.