It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 2:43 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:49 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
And I've been having issue with that classic definition for a lot of reasons not least of which is - who told you you could go adding your labor to that raw material in the first place? As I said, that raw material belongs either no one or to everyone. And if it belongs to everyone, well, that answers your question as to why "society" has any say in the matter. Just cuz you got there first is no reason that you get last say.

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:08 pm 
Offline
hooked

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 4864
yovargas wrote:
And I've been having issue with that classic definition for a lot of reasons not least of which is - who told you you could go adding your labor to that raw material in the first place? As I said, that raw material belongs either no one or to everyone. And if it belongs to everyone, well, that answers your question as to why "society" has any say in the matter. Just cuz you got there first is no reason that you get last say.


No one told anyone they could or could not mix their labor... it's a "free" society, so they can if they want, as long as no one owns it already.

If everything belongs to everyone, there is no property, which is certainly a position some have advocated, but it is not my ideal society :)

_________________
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:25 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
And if it belongs to no one, huge swaths of our current ownership aren't really determined by "mixing labor with with materials", but are just "finders (or conquerors) keepers, losers weepers". Philosophically, I can't really get behind that.

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:35 pm 
Offline
hooked

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 4864
Who are these "losers?" If no one was using the land, then no one lost the land. If two people noticed the same piece of land no one was using, then yeah I guess the first one there "won" and the second "lost" but I don't see the problem here.

I do see a problem with property evaporating when you die, and suddenly your wealth either disappears, or is suddenly up for grabs by anyone. If property exists, which it does in a maxim society (as well as our current society), then it is a fairly simple transaction to give it away when you die.

Again, the end result you are suggesting is that "society" is better equipped to hand out someone's wealth when they die, than they were when they wrote their will. Furthermore, the logical conclusion is that there can be NO charity. If you give to someone who needs something more than you, they didn't labor for it, so society should take it away and distribute it as they see fit.

That doesn't fit in a my ideal free society. That, in fact sounds like "society" is controlling all property transactions to give things to whoever they want... probably the people who are deciding will benefit a lot... kind of like government...

_________________
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:47 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 33325
halplm wrote:
If property exists, which it does in a maxim society (as well as our current society), then it is a fairly simple transaction to give it away when you die.


You clearly have not studied the rule against perpetuities*, the bane of every law school student everywhere. ;)

Sorry, carry on. :)



* “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.”

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:02 am
Posts: 3613
halplm wrote:
The third world country is a third world country because it’s leaders are corrupt, exploitative criminals. Such a situation would not exist in a free society. In a free society those women would not be trapped in a work here or starve situation. They would have the freedom to leave.
[citation needed]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:04 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
halplm wrote:
Who are these "losers?" If no one was using the land, then no one lost the land. If two people noticed the same piece of land no one was using, then yeah I guess the first one there "won" and the second "lost" but I don't see the problem here.


I see a ton of problems with it if what you "lost" by showing up second is essential to your survival or well-being, as it is in many of the poorest places in the world.

(I'm going to do my best to not post here for a good bit to give someone else a chance to talk about something besides the abstract philosophical concept of ownership, despite how much fun as that is. :P)

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:13 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 39067
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Well, in yov's temporary absence :P: I'm really curious about the definition of ownership you've presented, Hal, because I'm not sure it covers all aspects of "value" or "use."

What about benefits derived directly from not using land? For example, a wildlife reserve, as in the Oregon occupation that ended peacefully a few hours ago. I benefit from that reserve even if I never go there, because knowing that a diversity of bird species will continue to survive in the wild has value for me. It's on federal land, which means it belongs to everyone. But the occupiers and others in that movement believe that because their cattle graze on federal land (because they use it), it's theirs for all uses they may care to make of it.

If ownership of federal lands could be assumed by whoever uses them, they would be used up very quickly, and those of us with a "non-use" interest in the land, such as people who would prefer that the rim of the Grand Canyon not be lined with condos whether or not we're ever able to go there and look at it ourselves, lose something of real value.

It was in that kind of interest that, years ago, Oregon made all beaches public land and required owners of property along beaches to provide reasonable public access. Some of that land could be used much more profitably than it is, but is deriving financial gain from it the only purpose of land?

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:28 pm 
Offline
hooked

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 4864
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:

You clearly have not studied the rule against perpetuities*, the bane of every law school student everywhere. ;)


Remember, the first thing we did, was get rid of all the lawyers :P, no offense :).

yovargas wrote:
I see a ton of problems with it if what you "lost" by showing up second is essential to your survival or well-being, as it is in many of the poorest places in the world.

(I'm going to do my best to not post here for a good bit to give someone else a chance to talk about something besides the abstract philosophical concept of ownership, despite how much fun as that is. :P)


I too, recognize the need to back off a bit, I just didn't have anything else to do for a couple of hours, and you're making my life difficult :P. As for the "showing up second," remember the ownership doesn't start until you actually mix the labor, and one person can't just build a fence around a thousand acres and suddenly say It's all mine when they can only farm a few acres by themselves. Greed exists, of course, but you can't just claim you own everything.

Griffon64 wrote:
halplm wrote:
The third world country is a third world country because it’s leaders are corrupt, exploitative criminals. Such a situation would not exist in a free society. In a free society those women would not be trapped in a work here or starve situation. They would have the freedom to leave.
[citation needed]


To which are you referring? I assume it is the comment of third world leaders, as the rest is in a hypothetical society. Aside from the potential belief that ALL nations are led by corrupt exploitative criminals, I would make the argument that there is no reason to have any third world countries, and they can only exist in our time if the wealth that should naturally come their way through global commerce is somehow prevented from reaching them... usually by those in power. If you know of a leader of a third world country (one that is not merely symbolic or a puppet) who is not corrupt, and accepts the aid of other nations, and it goes right to the people who need it most in order to help them improve their lives and the lives of those in their community, without significant government interference, I would be interested to hear about it.

And with that, I too will bow out for a while, as I go discuss how we deal with criminals in our maxim society... (hint: don't break the maxim)

ETA:
Primula Baggins wrote:
Well, in yov's temporary absence :P: I'm really curious about the definition of ownership you've presented, Hal, because I'm not sure it covers all aspects of "value" or "use."

What about benefits derived directly from not using land? For example, a wildlife reserve, as in the Oregon occupation that ended peacefully a few hours ago. I benefit from that reserve even if I never go there, because knowing that a diversity of bird species will continue to survive in the wild has value for me. It's on federal land, which means it belongs to everyone. But the occupiers and others in that movement believe that because their cattle graze on federal land (because they use it), it's theirs for all uses they may care to make of it.


First of all, I would object to anything being federal lands, and yes, in the maxim society I describe, there would be no concept of national or state parks. There is nothing, however, preventing people from using land as a reserve, or preserving it for observation. This is still a "use" even if it's different from farming or logging, or herding cattle. In fact, I would argue that there are a great many people who would get together and form a partnership to preserve these lands. Of course, if a farmer had been using the land for cattle grazing before they got there, they would either have to continue letting him do so as he had established those use rights, or they could compensate him so that he agrees to give up those rights.

_________________
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:36 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 33325
halplm wrote:
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:

You clearly have not studied the rule against perpetuities*, the bane of every law school student everywhere. ;)


Remember, the first thing we did, was get rid of all the lawyers :P, no offense :).


With all due respect, that is not realistic. In the real world, no matter how idealized, human interactions are complicated, and need to be governed by some set of very extensive rules, enough so that there need to be people to help navigate those rules. You could as easily say, let's get rid of all of the doctors, because in my ideal world there would be no sickness, no injuries, no aging, no death. You could certainly say that, but it would be meaningless. Just as meaningless as saying that you would get rid of all of the lawyers.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:56 pm 
Offline
Ni Dieu, ni maître
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 1790
Location: Home
I just wanted to add that the education system proposed sounds like slavery to me. "Sell" the education of your child? To a company who needs certain skills? And if your child has no particular skill? Or only those developing late? If your child is one of those human beings whose road through life is not straight and will need detours? And if the financement of your child's education is already based on his future labour (one of the proposed options), you sell the child away for a work he did not choose at an age where he cannot decide? That is not liberty, that is slavery.

Quote:
because everyone has to be treated equal, which means everyone has to be treated like the stupidest and laziest kid in the class.

I work in public education. The program is not adapted or changed according to the laziest or worse student in class. That's the kid who will have to repeat the class. But even the laziest or most stupid child in class has the right to be given an opportunity to learn. You'd be surprised how often those who were labelled smart at age 5 just fail later, whereas others who seemed lazy and stupid at age 5 find ressources within them much later and become excellent and hard-working students - especially if it was not given to them at the start. Education is a very long term and very torturous process where few things are straight and foreseeable. And then I can't help to think of kids like my nephew who will maybe never be able to be "productive" or never have any particular skill - he is a child with an autism problem - who would want to pay for those? The student in my school who attempted suicide this year? What for those who fall out of the system and do not function like the company who paid for them had foreseen it? You will probably tell that this was their risk, but that answer is just too easy for me.

Also, much property does not at all derive from the land you work on. The Industrial Revolution has happened. And a technological one after that.

I also see inheritance as problematic. Especially as more richness than necessary for the lifetimes of many generations can easily be concentrated in one hand. I see that in my students. One of my ex-students recently opened a start-up to help new businesses in China. He learned chinese for that (in a private university, where he made his master degree in seven years instead of five) and got sufficient funds for starting his business (and no need to have rentability for a few years). His family is one of the 200 wealthiest in Switzerland.
One year later, another of my students graduated. Fluent in Russian, German, Spanish, English, French - brilliant kid. But, he could not pay university. Family emigrated from Russia only a few years ago. He got a place in one of the encouragement programs of a Swiss bank - so very much alike the system you proposed. They invested in his education, he worked for them first, then they sent him to university - of course no right to fail even one year and now he works for the bank. He'd love to open his own business, but as he told me once: I can't. I sold my soul.
Two successful kids on the outside. But one of them can do exactly what he wants at whatever price it costs - because of inheritance. Not because he is better or smarter or he worked more.
I took this example because both of them succeed (and because I happen to know those two kids). But also because I remember very well how he said: I sold my soul. There is more to success than a job and a salary. There is more to education than learning skills. (hey, my school offers classes of ancient greek - a useless "skill" if there ever was one! Yet, those students are quite often the best of all...)

And yes, corruption is one of the problems of third world countries. But it's not the only one. Mentality, health, climate and the fact that the nation state as organisation does not fit all societies - all those are problems too.

I don't believe, in the end that there can be ONE way and ONE organisation of society that fits all situations. It's like good clothing: made to measure it unbeatable. Different places, climates, histories, people, cultures need different solutions.

I'm sorry if all this sounds a bit "in disorder" (my brain is not wired on English). Well, I am very tired today (preparing tests for those students... correcting... encouraging.. orientating... daily bread.)

Edited some typos, but I fear not all.

_________________
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".


Last edited by Nin on Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
Just Keep Singin'
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:35 am
Posts: 4649
Location: Boston, MA
I think ensuring citizens have a basic level of education (being able to read, write and figure) is essential to improving any society. One of the reasons the "working class" citizens in Zambia have such a tough time improving themselves is lack of education. All schools charge fees; education is not provided by the government. So if you don't have money for school fees, you don't get to go to school. And even when people DO have the funds, most can only afford the elementary level.

I am curious to know who here on this board has traveled outside their own country and the nature of that travel. I find that most citizens in the USA have NEVER left the country or if they have, it has been for a short vacation and usually to another first-world country. Living in Zambia for the past 3 years has been quite an eye-opener in many ways for me.

_________________
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:32 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
JewelSong wrote:
I am curious to know who here on this board has traveled outside their own country and the nature of that travel.


Me, me, me! :wave:

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:07 pm 
Offline
Ni Dieu, ni maître
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 1790
Location: Home
Jewel to answer that question: I have not travelled that much:
as a child (9 years old) we went to Afghanistan, where my uncle was working as a teacher, for a three week holiday. In 1992, I spent a month living in Moscow with a Russian family - just one year after the fall of the Soviet Union. (Very interesting). I have of course travelled in Europe. (Italy, Greece, Spain, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland, Tcheque Repubilc, Poland, France) but always as a tourist. I have travelled in Guatemala. I have been to NYC...
BUT:
I have grown up in a city where the coal mines were closing one after the other and where unemployment was 20%. I have lived the German reunification closely - my father was working in privatization. Part of my cousins have lived in Afghanistan and the Phillipines and we have heard so much from them. Matthias has worked for an NGO in education programs in Burkina Faso, Niger, Bangladesh and Guatemala for years. He never stayed in the countries very long, but has followed programs for years. My stepson spent the entire last summer in Tadjikistan and Afghanistan for reasearch in ethnology. I live in a highly international city.

I'd like to travel more and longer. I'd love to spend a year in a completey different country. I want to speak more languages to broaden my horizon.
And even between Switzerland and Germany I see the difference between a country "untouched" by WWII like Switzerland and one which has been through war. You see the differences when once, there was one generation in a family which lost all, even 70 years later. You see it in little things, but you still see it. My grand mother fled from Poland in 1945, when the Red Army was approaching with five children and two suitcases. (But this is a different question, I know it, I waffle).

In fact, I just wanted to say that I'm off for a week in the mountains with snow and spa and corrections (they are never far away) and most important without Internet connection. :)

_________________
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:10 pm 
Offline
Hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 5090
Location: Missouri
I've been to Mexico once as a child, on a short day trip vacation.
Toronto, Canada in 2003 for the Gathering.
Barbados in 2006 for an 8 day vacation.
And I lived in Hattersheim, West Germany from 1986 to 1989. The first couple of years I was stationed there in my own right. The last year I left active duty and was there as a military dependent. 1987 included a 4 day trip to Paris, France- a strictly tourist venture. And 1988 included a trip to Berlin almost as tourists. I was off active duty by then, but my husband had to wear his uniform when we went into East Berlin- it was the rule back then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:17 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 39067
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
I haven't had anything like the experiences of traveling and living abroad that Nin and Jewel have had. I've essentially never been outside the First World.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:42 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 33325
I've done a little traveling, as I think I have mentioned here in the past.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:41 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
JewelSong wrote:
I think ensuring citizens have a basic level of education (being able to read, write and figure) is essential to improving any society.


This is getting a bit off topic but...

I was recently reading this book about addressing extreme poverty. It said studies have shown that on average, each grade kids attend would increase your average life income by 8%. That average 8% increase was consistent for each grade up all the way through the end of (our equivalent of) 12th grade. So even just finishing 3rd grade would, on average, be a notable improvement of 24% more income for the extremely poor. The problem was, they found it extremely difficult to convince the very poor that education was worth the very difficult investment it would often require of them, because the immediate term loss of income you barely have is very tangible and obvious compared to an average 8% income increase 10-15 years from now, which is very hard to see and believe in. Pretty sad.....

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:47 pm 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 9951
Location: the dry land
JewelSong wrote:
I am curious to know who here on this board has traveled outside their own country and the nature of that travel.

Many times. Western Hemisphere: Bolivia, British Virgin Islands, Canada*4, Costa Rica, Ecuador*2, Grenada*2, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines*2, and Mexico. I also transited through Panama and got a stamp to prove it, but I dropped that passport down a crevasse in the French Alps (see the next list).

Eastern Hemisphere: Belgium, Denmark*2, France*2, Montenegro*3, Netherlands, Serbia*5, Switzerland, Tanzania, United Kingdom*3. I've also wandered in and out of Italy while climbing in the Alps, taken trains across Germany but sadly never left the stations, and took a ferry over to Sweden and lingered in Malmo for half an hour before grabbing the last ferry back to Denmark.

On the trips to former Yugoslavia and Denmark I stayed with locals and that changes the experience. Even within the First World, travel is an eye-opener and Europe outside the EU is different from Europe within. As for Third World countries, well, they vary. Tanzania was easily the least developed of them all.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:55 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13107
Location: Florida
River wrote:
I also transited through Panama and got a stamp to prove it, but I dropped that passport down a crevasse in the French Alps .



If I had a dollar for every time that's happened to me.....

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group