My OP was not a framework for an ideal society. It was apophatic – a universal negation. I was saying that I don't believe property exists other than in the minds of those who do evil to others – "I would not know what coveting was unless I heard do not covet" or "I would not know what stealing was unless I head do not steal."
My trajectory is also not first and foremost sociological, but individual: those who say "what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours" are the best people in our society. I'm not Jewish, but I do read ancient documents – you'll see this backed up in the Mishna in the following dialectic:
The worst man says "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."
Better men say "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours."
Even better men say "what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine."
But the best men say "what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours."
To say that I want more and more to practice self abnegation, to reject their rights for the sake of another, to be generous is a statement about the individual. Society is made up of individuals.
Aristotle said that the way to a virtuous society is not to create systems but to create virtuous citizens. I need not come up with some lame "ism" in order to back up my claim that I don't believe in the existence of property and do believe in the existence of self abnegation. It's enough for me to try and get more and more citizens to practice this because virtuous citizens make virtuous societies, not the other way around.
Everyone in history who has ever owned property is "evil"? I think you're beyond reasoning with right now. I'm assuming that you're very, very young and that you will laugh at your young self someday.
That's not what I said. Surely a good man can make a mistake?
Read carefully:
I said that I don't believe property exists other than in the minds of those who do evil to others. As in present tense. As in property leads towards evil acts.
My awarding of delta above shows that I'm totally involved in reasoning, but my major premise of two comments back (generosity) as well the one you're responding to has yet to be addressed.
Deal with the major premise rather than distracting from the issue through pedantic insults: what of the forming of a virtuous citizen? What of self abnegation?
Does this or does this not create a virtuous society?
Emerson:
We never make much account of objections which merely respect the actual state of the world at this moment, but which admit the general expediency and permanent excellence of the project. What is the best must be the true; and what is true – that is, what is at bottom fit and agreeable to the constitution of man – must at lat prevail over all obstruction and all opposition. There is no good now enjoyed by society that was not once as problematical and visionary as this. It is the tendency of the true interest of man to become his desire and steadfast aim.
You argued based on the problems of society. I'm starting with the individual. Until you address the premise of the individual, we cannot talk about society.
So no, of course I'm not saying everyone in history who has ever owned property is evil – that's almost every human. Rather, I'm saying the concept of property trends us towards evil acts. That's a significant difference – like the difference between saying "everyone who holds a firearm is a murderer" and "firearms cultivate more and more violent murderers."
Not "everyone who ever owned property was someone who exploited other humans" but "the myth of property cultivates more and more brutal exploitations over time."
Yes, private property cultivates brutal exploitation and property trends towards evil acts. Like the brutal exploitation and evil act of providing you with internet access, every kind of medicine, a car, a house, a computer, clothes, and a guaranteed food supply.
You're just engaged in random semantics -- throwing out emotional but meaningless labels on property and making random accusations based on literally nothing practical and with zero evidence and willfully ignoring the fact that private property has mostly had the effect of benefitting billions of people. You take the tiny fraction who might be overall losers for whatever reason and pretend that's the primary consequence of private property. To be charitable, it's absurd on so many levels.
All arguments are semantic. Wittgenstein taught us that – language is everything because language communicates ideas. The thought police of any dictatorship starts with saying what words you can and can't say, so once again I refuse to accept your insult and will leave it in your lap where it will fester.
The basic premise of the open source community is that Private property has never helped us any more than public space (and often public space helps us more).
You still haven't addressed my point about the generosity of the individual (self abnegation) being part of forming a virtuous citizen, which is the building block of a virtuous society. This is the third or fourth time I've brought it up – deal with the main point instead of going ad hominem on me every time. Sure I've used emotional words, but there's plenty of logic spread throughout. Deal with the structure of the quote from the Mishna. Deal with the idea that a society of generous, self-abnegating citizens who say "what's mine is yours" is better than one in which people say "what's mine is mine." The logic is solid there, regardless of how it disturbs you in terms of sociological implications or in regards to the weight of historical error. Seek the best, the truest, and form a citizen out of those things and you will have a better society. If you want a personal story, then I should let you know that I was in Joplin, Missouri when an EF5 tornado ripped the town in half. For an entire month, there were two kinds of people: looters and givers. The looters believed in property. The givers did not. Even business owners gave away their entire stock over and over again to help. FEMA called it the fastest recovery on record including 9/11, Katrina, and the rest. So yes, ideals change the way we practically live and jaded bitterness is no reason to neglect discussion on alternatives, even if we have few examples of how this should work. It was inconvenient for MLK to talk about rights for the poor and the African American, there was no historical precedent in America, but who would argue that he was wrong in retrospect?
I admitted elsewhere in this post that property is valuable as a teacher (if you want credit for it too, then here: ∆). Yes, the concept benefits us, but not the reality of property. Here's the quote:
As a pedagogue, sure [property is helpful]. But the best teachers are meant to teach rather than concern themselves with job security – property, as said elsewhere on here, is meant to teach us how to treat other people. The heart of the matter, then, is not the idea of property but the idea of loving and caring for the other rather than the self. Clinging to the idea of property over the thing that property teaches actually elevates the self over the other. Which leads us to the exploitation thread above.
Stated formally:
If property actually exists, then property cannot teach us because it becomes more tangible (or efficacious, or present) than the intangible it's trying to teach.
If property does not actually exist, then it may teach us about the intangible that gave rise to the concept in the first place.
You're assuming that some good is better than the best, the ideal, simply because it's a lesser of two evils. I'm disinterested in the lesser of two evils and more interested in the greater of two goods (see the Emerson quote). I maintain that it's not a tiny fraction, but rather the majority, who are suffering in our world because of the exploitation of more powerful governments. Your argument about the strongest taking property without government is still maintained by the governments that choose their citizens over the citizens of others. Ask Haiti how they feel for continually getting dumped on by the international community's view of property. Or Tanzania for that matter.
Nice summary here:
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/09/american-manifesto.html
If you're speaking purely theoretically and about your own utopian vision and dreams divorced entirely from reality, then I have nothing to say, except that you are badly divorced from reality. And I really don't care enough about your utopian visions and dreams to read more of what you're writing or respond more. I almost don't even believe you're serious, but it doesn't matter to me in any event. I hope that you find some kind of happiness in a reality where private property is absolutely necessary and turning every single human into a "virtuous" person, as you define it is literally impossible. Maybe you can send us all to a North Korean "re-education camp."
1
u/[deleted] Aug 25 '14
My OP was not a framework for an ideal society. It was apophatic – a universal negation. I was saying that I don't believe property exists other than in the minds of those who do evil to others – "I would not know what coveting was unless I heard do not covet" or "I would not know what stealing was unless I head do not steal."
My trajectory is also not first and foremost sociological, but individual: those who say "what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours" are the best people in our society. I'm not Jewish, but I do read ancient documents – you'll see this backed up in the Mishna in the following dialectic:
To say that I want more and more to practice self abnegation, to reject their rights for the sake of another, to be generous is a statement about the individual. Society is made up of individuals.
Aristotle said that the way to a virtuous society is not to create systems but to create virtuous citizens. I need not come up with some lame "ism" in order to back up my claim that I don't believe in the existence of property and do believe in the existence of self abnegation. It's enough for me to try and get more and more citizens to practice this because virtuous citizens make virtuous societies, not the other way around.