Don Brayton wrote:
>
>Absolutely, but lets refine it a bit and get to the nomad versus agrarian
>issue later. Answer for me:
>Is my body, my property?
No. because you cannot sell it (although you can sell your time you cannot
sell your body)
>Is the Swiss Army knife which I purchased, my property?
Yes.
>If I built a floating island which
>could sustain me in the middle of the ocean, would it be my property?
Why would you want to do that?
>Is
>there anything which can be _totally_ my property, or do you assert that
>the community has some prior claim to some or all things, physical,
>intellectual and perhaps even spiritual?
No and no. But, to get the answer you wanted you had to phrase your
question very broadly indeed. The community has some prior claim to
SOCIALLY-PRODUCED property, just as you have some rights in the community.
Obviously the community cannot claim to have prior claim to ALL things,
especially spiritual.
>If so, who is to draw the line
>and decide just where my prerogatives end and the communityís begins ...
>pure authority (established by might), authority moderated by law or a
>form of democracy? If the latter, how do I defend myself from a
>majority who would vote to see me dead and divide up my property?
The more you wish to claim as your own personal property the more difficult
will be the task of defending it. If you wish to claim only your conscience
as your own your task will be easier than if you wish to claim a continent
or two. From that we can deduce that the easiest way to defend your
personal property is to be modest in your claims and generous in
recognising others'.
If you claim only what you need, and ensure others have what they need, you
are not only less conspicuous a target of envy, but there is no-one with
any good reason to covet what you may have.
>
>
<<SNIP>> We will probably always be wrestling with
>the nomad versus agrarian issue. Most of the deeply imbedded
>mythologies, cultures and religions were developed millennia ago in order
>to cope with the nomadic life. Relatively recently, as agrarian
>technologies proved more efficient at survival, we have created dogmas to
>support the ethics of ownership, but the romance of the wanderer lives
>on.
But few wish to return to a life that entails a daily struggle to survive.
And most of the popular religions came from feudal societies (Catholicism,
Confucianism, Hinduism, etc.) Protestant Christianity of course is the
religion of capitalism.
>Hypothetically, the first time a nomad returned to his customary
>fall habitat and found a fence around some trees laden with fruit, he did
>not understand why the "owner" fought him away. He believed that
>everyone, as either "God" or "The Community" shared all trees. He did
>not stop to think that the trees and fruit would not be there at all
>without the agrarian having taken responsibility for their care. The
>intelligent nomad adopted the new philosophy. The blindly resentful
>nomad attacked until he was either defeated or the farmer and probabaly
>the trees were destroyed.
It wasn't quite that easy. The farmer had to destroy the way of life of the
nomad before he could farm the nomad's land. Fruit trees do not fruit after
just one growing season, and the farmer would not plant them on land he did
not have rights to. To destroy the nomad's way of life he had to destroy
the nomad, either by absorbing him, or killing him. The same applies now,
we cannot create socialism without destroying the capitalist. The debate
between socialists is basically about how we do that.
>
>On a larger scale, we now have mega-owners of mega complexes with
>ownership agreements lasting over many lifetimes through institutions and
>inheritance agreements. The person who insists on being a nomad is still
>on the outs. You can take all the nomads (a la disenfranchised workers)
>and indoctrinate them, organize them, motivate them and hurl them against
>the agrarian/industrial flame like so many ants and you will not change
>the fact that ownership and individual responsibility is more efficient
>at survival than wandering around hoping and praying you will find what
>you need.
Indeed, but surely that is a straw man - who is it you believe is arguing
for a return to a hunter gatherer economy? When DDebar points out that
present property rights are based on theft he was not, in my view,
suggesting that Yankees return the USA to its previous owners, but showing
that there is historical precedent for abolishing property rights which are
not in the best interests of society as a whole.
>>
>NO REDRESS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT FIRST STOPPING THE TAKING. (Here
>goes Don again!) In everything you say, do and think, take the position
>that, for the individual and therefore groups, the aggressive use of
>force is wrong but that the use of force in self defense is right.
>Similarly, the use of deceit in the acquisition of property is wrong but
>the use of deceit to defend yourself is right (you do not have to tell
>the mugger, if he asks for more, that you have a hundred dollar bill
>tucked in your shoe).
As a socialist I see no need for agressive force to accomplish the desired
changes in social organisation. The working class already occupies the
workplace and produces the wealth, we need only make the decision that the
means of production is therefor SOCIAL property and cease handing over all
we produce to the capitalist. We keep producing, but make our own decisions
about what we produce and what we do with what we produce.
Of course there may be some trouble from the former owners of the means of
production, they may be expected to initiate some "agressive force" to
re-assert control over us. But you seem to agree we would then have the
right to defend ourselves ("the use of force in self defense is right")
against such agression and since we are numerically far superior the result
is a foregone conclusion.
>
<<SNIP>> In the spirit of democracy, let those in this forum who care
>to comment give me advice. Was this a sexist comment or is there enough
>truth and humor in it that it contributed to the sense of my remarks? If
>the majority chooses the former, I will be more politically correct in
>the future.
Did you intend it to be a sexist remark, that is the question? It was
certainly a poor analogy to compare a wife withholding food from her
husband (who can cook his own food) with a ruling class withholding
subsistence from their subject (working) class who cannot produce anything
without the capitalist, because the means of production is entirely owned
by the capitalist class. The wife withholding food from her husband is more
analogous, in a patriarchal social context, with workers withholding their
labour from their employer (striking) to force a concession.
>
>More importantly, your response validates my point and uncovers a
>difference between us. I believe that all life deserves to live to its
>potential as individuals. Are you averse to those with ability, like the
>wife (or husband, or baby, or ...) who seek to control others in their
>environment (give and withdraw food, for example)? There is nothing
>wrong with seeking to control your environment which in part, contains
>other human beings.
Am I missing something? You consider it OK to control others by threatening
to take their life by starvation, yet not OK to control others by
threatening to take their life with a bullet. The motive is the same, the
result is the same, I see no practical difference. Explain it to me.
>The issue is how and within what limits: the use of
>force and deceit versus persuasion, agreement and exchange. The common
>man (person, to be properly PC) can be trusted. For example, If there
>were two equivalent restaurants, except one allowed carrying concealed
>weapons and the other did not, I would choose the former because it would
>likely be populated with armed commoners and anyone with criminal intent
>would stay away. I am not averse to able people. I am averse to thugs
>and liars and others who would use more covert forms of force.
Personally I would prefer the restaurant where the weapons were NOT
concealed. Again your remarks contain deep contradictions, you do not seem
to regard concealed weapons as "covert", yet apparantly an open display of
weapons ARE! I also wonder why anyone with criminal intent (I assume you do
not include those carrying concealed weapons, although they sound like a
suspicious bunch to me) would be more likely to attack a group of overtly
armed diners rather than those apparantly not armed.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tasmania
|
