Property is theft!

[DCon]

Cowen with the munchies would be a ferocious sight

[sarahj]

Cowen with the munchies would be a ferocious sight

He'd eat a heifer I'd say!

[Christel]

I don't know Skateson.

To me, it is still inefficient that you are the sole decision maker over that piece of property, when others are affected by your decisions.

It's still better than you using that land for your own individual gain, but still inefficient. For example, you may grow food for yourself on a half acre and the other two and a half is devoted to food for charity. If you are the only decision maker (as you have control with ownership), then you will decide what food to grow for the charity. So you may grow wheat, which could easily be unnecessary to the charities you want to give it to. Thus, it would be a more efficient outcome for you to allow the charities decision making rights over the resources which they are affected by.

I was thinking about this last night in the context of the apparent new movement and desire of some people to have an allotment to grow food, which I think is great.

I imagined an area given to such people by a Council for example. And I think people starting allotment gardening would want to have a plot which they can work and where they can decide what to grow, and to have it clear that what grows out of their work is theirs. And not having other allotmenters or strangers coming in for harvesting, or telling them what to do.

One could now consider the possibility that a whole allotment area was a common initiative and growing and harvesting planned by all and work plans made and everyone getting part of their share of the common harvest.

But apart from this requiring additional mental and organisational work, it's probably less fun than doing your own on your own area. The former already smacks a bit like the usual position as a worker in a company or in public sevice. The latter is a more independent activity where the joy of individual freedom and success can be experienced.

[feargach]

Private property is the cornerstone of any functioning society.

This thread is for debate on the philosophical and theoretical justifications on private property. It is NOT for silly one-liners about society falling apart.

The thing is that there is no philosophical or theoretical justification for private property AND private property is the cornerstone of any functioning society.

Private property is only tolerable because it works.

In 1500, most of Ireland was wilderness, by 1800, it was almost entirely composed of functional farmland.

Such a transformation simply could not happen without a system of private property.

You should read Jared Diamond. He shows that every culture that grew beyond the hunter-gatherer level developed a definite series of laws, of which private property was only one. Others were monarchy, primogeniture, centralised decision-making and taxation towards the hereditary chief. All of these things brought a much-desired sense of certainty to things in primitive life.

I'm open to the idea that maybe we have evolved past property in the same way we have got past the need for monarchy. Or maybe we might evolve past it in 50 years.

[Christel]

Via looking for Irish law on squatting I ended up to find entries about "adverse possession", such as this for example:

MJ O'Connor Solicitors - Wexford & Waterford, Ireland, Leading South East Law Firm - The Brief

What relevance has it to the stick example earlier on this thread? If you carry the stick long enough? Adverse ownership seems seems only have relevance to land, though?

I hadn't thought of this phenomenon until today.

[Christel]

The thing is that there is no philosophical or theoretical justification for private property AND private property is the cornerstone of any functioning society.

Private property is only tolerable because it works.

In 1500, most of Ireland was wilderness, by 1800, it was almost entirely composed of functional farmland.

Such a transformation simply could not happen without a system of private property.

You should read Jared Diamond. He shows that every culture that grew beyond the hunter-gatherer level developed a definite series of laws, of which private property was only one. Others were monarchy, primogeniture, centralised decision-making and taxation towards the hereditary chief. All of these things brought a much-desired sense of certainty to things in primitive life.

I'm open to the idea that maybe we have evolved past property in the same way we have got past the need for monarchy. Or maybe we might evolve past it in 50 years.

The aspect of certainty and continuity is probably still important.

[Akrasia]

The thing is that there is no philosophical or theoretical justification for private property AND private property is the cornerstone of any functioning society.

Private property is only tolerable because it works.

In 1500, most of Ireland was wilderness, by 1800, it was almost entirely composed of functional farmland.

Such a transformation simply could not happen without a system of private property.

You should read Jared Diamond. He shows that every culture that grew beyond the hunter-gatherer level developed a definite series of laws, of which private property was only one. Others were monarchy, primogeniture, centralised decision-making and taxation towards the hereditary chief. All of these things brought a much-desired sense of certainty to things in primitive life.

I'm open to the idea that maybe we have evolved past property in the same way we have got past the need for monarchy. Or maybe we might evolve past it in 50 years.

We would need to develop democratic institutions to replace the antiquated private ownership model, and that is where anarcho syndicalism comes in. 'Ownership' from the bottom up. It meets all the requirements for maximum democracy, and large scale cooperation and trade necessary to live in the 21st century.

[Christel]

We would need to develop democratic institutions to replace the antiquated private ownership model, and that is where anarcho syndicalism comes in. 'Ownership' from the bottom up. It meets all the requirements for maximum democracy, and large scale cooperation and trade necessary to live in the 21st century.

Can you illustrate this with one or two practical examples? Would be helpful for me.

[feargach]

We would need to develop democratic institutions to replace the antiquated private ownership model, and that is where anarcho syndicalism comes in. 'Ownership' from the bottom up. It meets all the requirements for maximum democracy, and large scale cooperation and trade necessary to live in the 21st century.

That assumes that maximum democracy is desirable. Is it not a common situation for democratic majorities to be dead wrong on certain issues, and certain individuals to be right? I'm thinking of Nouriel Roubini and Galileo among others.

[sarahj]

The thing is that there is no philosophical or theoretical justification for private property AND private property is the cornerstone of any functioning society.

Private property is only tolerable because it works.

In 1500, most of Ireland was wilderness, by 1800, it was almost entirely composed of functional farmland.

Such a transformation simply could not happen without a system of private property.

You should read Jared Diamond. He shows that every culture that grew beyond the hunter-gatherer level developed a definite series of laws, of which private property was only one. Others were monarchy, primogeniture, centralised decision-making and taxation towards the hereditary chief. All of these things brought a much-desired sense of certainty to things in primitive life.

I'm open to the idea that maybe we have evolved past property in the same way we have got past the need for monarchy. Or maybe we might evolve past it in 50 years.

We only needed private property for a particular type of society, not for "any functioning society".