Not2bSubjugated I dig the reply and appreciate the clarity with which you delineated the strawman and stress on the phrase "in addition."
A unique defense of property: not that it's actually an inherent thing but has descriptively developed through evolutionary means. The contract and legal system we have depends on property. It arranges distribution and the like in legal terms though I think those terms are favoritist and can be traced back to the interests of those setting up the legal framework which is at odd with the majority of human beings on the planet. But as you speak of property allow me to continue: we will continue to evolve and it's entirely likely that property will be subjugated by a mega corporation or conglomerate and it will be opposed to the interests of all the people. Either way, evolution will end property and continue with something else.
Also notice the descriptive fact we adopted private property is not a good argument to adopt the notion.
You also hinted that we will have lowered incentives without property. This is true if humans are taught to pursue wealth forgetting all but self. However, most humans do not live according to this radically anti-human proposition and even those who adhere continue to concern others in their decision making. The one's who don't are clinically diagnosed as pathological and these are the sorts of people who make big bucks on wall street (search on WSJ "lessons of a brain damaged investor").
But if we taught people to adhere to their internal principles of community and social activity, we would naturally develop interchange that is akin to the dialectical process of life that leads to technological advancement. We have been advancing and regressing all the while long before property and profit-maximization were thought up, let alone utilized. Albeit we have seen the most rapid development, this development has not been without cost. Computers were funded for decades before they were turned into private hands. The costs to develop them were funded by the public and once they became marketable we transfered them to Gates and the like. The public reaps the benefits by paying Gates for something they helped create? Odd way of technological advancement. Make people pay more for what they already paid for.
I would keep going as your reply deserves much attention but I must sadly announce I do not have it in me to devote the proper time. Instead I will praise you for your cogent reply and ask what is your educational background for shits and giggles?
I tend to associate your lucidity with a philosophical background but your actual position is usually found among untrained layman or CEOs. I figure you are neither, so why are you defending a position that has no practical value to you and that you must understand as having shortcomings (like water insecurity). I really enjoyed your section on water not existing in certain areas and most people not having access. It was a really eloquent and accurate portrayal that I left out of my reply though I didn't expect you to understand with such precision. Despite our disagreement on this topic, I would like to venture to other areas of interest because you are definitely not to be subjugated (neither am I)!
On your first paragraph, I agree that the initial layout of property distribution anywhere tends to be favorable to the people laying out the terms. That isn't unique to an individual property setup by any means. The problem is with human instinct: where there is enough power to be misused, power will inevitably be misused. The only thing you can count on in terms of a human's driving force is that every single human being seeks to bend as much of his environment as he can to his own values. Integrity and consideration for others are learned values and certainly can't be relied upon, no matter to whom you delegate economic control.
The terms are also favoritist in the sense that they favor those with the greatest overall capacity. The dirty little secret is that any system favors essentially the same people: Those with the most advantageous combination of a high level of natural competence and a low level of moral restriction. Whether the game is judged by money or political sway, the same general crowd will emerge at the apex, and there will -always- be an apex.
As far as mankind "evolving" out of the tendency for desiring individual property, I find that proposition highly laughable. The dual factors of instinctive territoriality and consciousness separated by individual haven't, either of them, changed one iota throughout the recorded history of mankind or any theoretical buildup to that recorded history. Cultural attitudes can't change these factors unless they cause them to be bred out of existence. This is also highly unlikely as atypical psychology isn't a universal point of attractiveness in -any- culture. You know what is? Height. Tall men tend to be viewed as universally attractive. The only natural evolution that's currently effecting mankind, now that we've essentially tamed natural selection as it applies to us, is that we're gradually getting taller, cuz tall guys get laid more than short guys.
Then again, the new technologies and theories regarding augmenting the human brain do point to the probability of eventual communal consciousness by way of electronic telepathy, for lack of a better term. Maybe you're right. Until then, I stand by siding with the basic instinctive premise.
Next up, the lowered incentives without property don't have anything to do with people being taught to value property. Nobody has to be taught to be possessive. On the contrary, eventually every toddler has to be introduced to the concept of sharing.
Regardless of that point, the desire to gather material wealth isn't limited to those with materialistic desires. Anyone who recognizes that money is simply a physical representation of capacity recognizes that money, as opposed to being an end of itself, is a means by which to shape the world around them to their values. Personally, I don't have the need for a lot of physical stuff. I'm kind of a minimalist. I still, however, seek to make literally as much money as I possibly can for any given transaction: The more money I have, the more secure the people I care about are. The more money I have, the more of my values and morals I can afford to promote. Desire for wealth is the same as desire for power, and desire for power is absolutely instinctive.
These inner feelings of community that you talk about, not so much. If community was instinctive, we wouldn't need laws. Unfortunately the "community" that humans adhere to on an instinctive level always equates to the most capable and influential subjugating those less so. We voluntarily form societies because the average individual doesn't want to be subject to the whims of the strong, which is what happens in a legal vacuum. Essentially, what you're proposing is that the most advantageous layout of material distribution is one where we simply teach everyone to eschew one of their most base instincts (individual territoriality) in favor of your morals. Personally, I view this as highly impractical.
Your computer illustration tells me that you and I have vast differences in opinion on who is responsible for what and who therefore owes who for what.
First off, computers were "funded" for years because our government had need for them. They weren't developing them because they thought home PC's would be super fun one day.
Then, "we" didn't transfer shit to Gates and the like, and computers didn't "become" marketable. The guys behind Apple and Microsoft took their knowledge of computer technology and designed products that made the concept of computers marketable to individuals for home, recreational use. If these things just "happened", maybe your argument would make sense. They did not.
Also, the fact that the public paid taxes for the development of computer technology does -not- mean that Bill Gates owes them computers. To the degree that those early computers advanced our governmental and military means, everyone in our society benefitted from that development. Also, everybody paying taxes actually -paid- for the benefit of that advancement, and for their access to said benefit. Presumably, Bill Gates paid for his own access to that benefit and therefore had every bit as much right to it as anybody else. Just because the rest of our society -didn't- turn their knowledge of computers/economics into a highly marketable home product and Bill gates -did- turn his knowledge into that, doesn't mean that Bill Gates owes anybody else the product of -his- contribution to the advancement of said technology. Like it or not, he's the guy that got the wheels moving on Microsoft, and whether or not anybody else theoretically -could- have made the same advancements is irrelevant: they did not. He did. Thus it is he who is selling the product and making the profit, and he God damn well should be. Microsoft has made the world a -far- more efficient place.
In terms of education, I was one of those poster children for wasted potential. High IQ highschool druggy, college dropout. Most of my abstract reasoning exists by virtue of nerdy habits. I read philosophy as a recreational hobby and, ever since I can remember, my version of day-dreaming during menial tasks is arguing abstract concepts in my head. Basically, I live and breathe this shit lol.
Lastly, I disagree with the premise that my philosophy doesn't benefit me. My philosophy demands that each man be allowed to pursue the values of his own conscience. My highest value, from a societal standpoint, is that society not interfere with my self-initiative. I also have zero desire to force anyone else to abide by my morals.
This idea that any ideology that doesn't force everyone to feed each other is contrary to the interests of the majority of mankind is silly, to me. Coddling isn't good for anyone, and all forms of wealth redistribution represent some degree of societally forced coddling of the disadvantaged.
Lastly, a system with less communal control of material favors those with the greatest individual capacity. I have individual capacity in spades. Any system in which I rely primarily on my own abilities to determine the benefit of my actions is a system in which I excel. Period.
