IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nice try.
>> Difference between 3 & 4: A car is made, sold, re-sold, donated, destroyed. ...

Where do I go to claim my piece of Pangea?

>> Sharing is the thing we have to teach.

Um, no. They come out of the womb with an innate desire to share. Take a baby a ball. If s/he's old enough to roll it, they'll roll it to you. Then you roll it back (showing them the same desire to share that they possess). Anyone whose ever spent an afternoon (or longer) playing "pass the baby doll back and forth" knows that. You know how we treat them sharing is bad? "Go to your room." "Don't touch that! That's daddy's." "Don't play with that! That belongs to your sister." And so on until they've fully embraced the notion of private property.

I'll never forget the day my daughter first said, "Meyes". We'd never used mine, yours or hers at our house. Everything was "ours." Even when she fed the VCR a peanut butter sandwich because she thought it was hungry, it was still our VCR and together we cleaned it so that "we" could continue to use it. "Meyes" she learned at the day-care center. It was only after proper indoctrination at the day care center on the virtues of Capitalist private property that she became concerned with what belonged to her and what belonged to her sister. I almost wept.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Back atchya
We'd never used mine, yours or hers at our house. Everything was "ours."
When getting dressed and you told her to put on shoes, did you say, "Put on our shoes"?
If she couldn't find "our" shoes, did you tell her, "They're in our bedroom"?
Do all of you share "our" toothbrush?

Possessive pronouns aren't indoctrination, they're description. The house I grew up in was "my" house, even though my parents' names were on the deed. The woman I sleep with is "my" wife, even though clearly no one owns her.

Oh wait, I just realized you're even more full of shit than that.
We'd never used mine, yours or hers at our house. Everything was "ours."
You do use possessive pronouns. I guess your family is allowed to own things then? Or can anyone just walk in to your house the house you live in and walk out with "our" VCR?
--

Drew
New snarky LRPD sez
It me, your father. ...

Ruductio ab absurdum aka cha. cha. cha. is often fun; nevertheless I rather doubt--when the tyke(s) have grown a bit beyond er, Dick & Jane Learn Personal Pronouns--that Mike will forsake perspicuity unto pecksniffery ..via such as, 'our' tampon/jock-strap etc. as clearly 'belong' to the appropriate Individual-homo-sap concerned.. right?

Further (I merely presume, having never lived there/then) that in the USSR, there existed mores such that folks would not/could not be expected to wander into a nearby household and grab the radio/TV-set? with a perfunctory, "We borrow back Our BBC-short-wave radio set now" ... and like that.



But then my POV on that and similar issues has always been: for Communism to be both practical and copacetic, homo-sap would have to have evolved Way-smarter than the current dis-US multiple-tribes. Could Happen, but not with any Trumpists (or brain-damaged Others). Future generations ..if there are any left.

Carrion: the lions eat first, the smaller species dine on the leftovers. So if homo-sap persists in its now-undereducated (ever underfunded to the masses), heading towards --> more of the same: carrion will be what the brutes dine on and ... forget fancy social theories that techno/science can ever save the unEducables from themselves, I wot.
New It's about lawyers
There's a specific way property law is just like nutrition and drug labeling. When done well, it's a way to remove lawyers from day-to-day transactions. I'll explain. (It takes a minute, but comes back around at the end.)

Some people vehemently oppose any kind of nutrition labeling.* Their argument is that as long as they accurately describe what's in the package, it's up to the consumer to decide whether they want to consume it.

Of course none of us has time to independently research everything we could possibly put in our bodies, so we rely on third parties to do the testing for us. And since that research is expensive, the only people with a motivation to do it are the same people with a motivation to lie if they don't like the results. This applies both to health claims for the ingredients, as well as verification that the ingredients actually are as listed.

We go through our daily lives reading labels and trusting that things are generally as stated, because a government agency somewhere is acting on our behalf to ensure that's true. If we couldn't rely on that every purchase would require independent investigation, and if the contents of a package don't match the ingredients it would be up to individual consumers to sue the manufacturers for redress, which is the official stated preference of libertarian-leaning Republicans.

If they get their way, there will be only two ways to trust you're getting what you pay for:
1) Have a fleet of lawyers on retainer, standing by to enforce your rights.
2) Only barter with people you personally know and trust.

So, how is this like property law?

Forget about philosophical "ownership" that transcends death and just answer this question: Who gets to decide who can drive the car parked in the driveway next to where I live? Who controls that car? I think it's me, because I "own" that car. Most of society agrees with me.

But let's do away with private property. Now who controls it? "The community." Okay, fine. But now I need to go to work. Today I get in "my" car and I go. If "the community" controls it, who has the keys? How do I get permission to take the keys? How far in advance do I need to reserve it?

I suspect "the community" will organize itself into various levels of administration. You'll need a lawyer to negotiate every request to use the car.

As long as there are scarce resources, you need a way to allocate them. You can either do that once, via policy - AKA property law - or you can do it at the point of every transaction.

Property law, done well, would mean it's clear who controls a resource, and that control is at an appropriate level. It doesn't make sense for "the community" to control my car, just as it doesn't make sense for a single person to control what can be dumped into a lake.


* "Nutritional supplements" already fall into a black hole, where they routinely make medical-sounding claims but aren't classified as drugs, so they fall under neither nutrition labeling laws nor efficacy standards. Yes, plenty of money went into building this dodge.
--

Drew
New Thanks! Interesting parallels ..and your Example more revealing than you might know..
"Libertarian-leaning" ...

Early-on as the nascent-IWeThey was coalescing from the cosmic dust, I exchanged a couple e-mails with Bill Patient, naturally curious about his (somewhat reminiscent of certain 'tics' of My Gramma?) er, political POV. He used that exact phrase preceded by "somewhat". (I believe that my ripostes to some of his posts here were 'coloured'-by that revelatory statement) both ways: clarifying por moi/giving some insight into why I instinctively despised self-avowed 'Libertytarians'--for their nihilism--and all along wondering how such a generous 'generally Nice-guy' [cf. those of you who attended his fine Bashes] could simultaneously-hold Two such contrary personal attributes (!) er "successfully".

(That said, I mean no disrespect to Bill's rep or character.) It is I who still hasn't a clue how he managed to preach-what-he-preached and putatively remain sane; that's about my comprehension--not [he. be. *Rong.] and other cha. cha. cha. RIP.
* er as the phrase, "wrongly decided" via which the likes of KKKavanagh et al premeditatedly-LIE via scripted Language-murther, First Class--fooling all the credulous Yokels extant.



PS: maybe also too your "shitty lawyers as Mephistophelian basket cases" is the most cogent of all reasons to generally despise the (whatever few?) Ones ever encountered: or just to remember the ^pinnacle of bastards^ --> Drumpf's fucking-Mentor! Roy Fucking-Cohn! he who dispensed ricin-grade cha. cha. cha. to the doddering Repos AND Dems of HUAC, back in-the-sordid-daze ..which I lived through umm, lividly. It takes All Bloody Kinds to fuck-up a %Huge of 330 million people-perps to the extent We now See every hour ..y'Know? We Win {though} The Internet of Looosers for the day, the month and the Century.
New It's epidemic among computer geeks
We're used to being the smartest person in the room. When regulation looks like "protecting people from themselves" we like to think, "Get your nanny state away from me, I'm too smart for that."

And on a single instance of a single transaction, with enough time to go down the rabbit hole and build a point-by-point position, that might be true. The problem is we can't do that every time for every decision.

You're probably not going to know enough about cars to beat the professional car salesman. You're probably not going to know more than the epidemiologist about the latest in drug interactions. At some point you have to trust someone, or better yet, trust the system. That's why making a good system is so important, and attacking the system itself is worse than any single offense against the system.
--

Drew
New a lot of that is cultural, when I was in fargo there was an issue with somali refugees
in somalia if you didnt want something you would leave it outside of your dwelling, someone with need would recognised it was no longer inside your guarded dwelling it must be fair game. In fargo you dont leave your garage door open, its an invitation
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New But they still recognize private property, and have a system to transfer it
--

Drew
New It is levels
About 15 years ago box posted a great description. Levels of caring.

Something like:
Me
Family
Tribe
Neighbors not in the tribe
Etc
Work your way out from genetics to social circles.
New Infants have no fear of falling, initially, either...
LiveScience:

As any parent knows, babies aren't born with a fear of heights. In fact, infants can act frighteningly bold around the edge of a bed or a changing table.

But at around 9 months, babies become more wary of such drop-offs. New research suggests infants build an avoidance of heights once they get more experience crawling and navigating the world on their own.

In one of their experiments, a group of scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, and Doshisha University in Kyoto studied babies that had not yet begun to crawl. Over the course of 15 days, some of the infants were trained to use a motorized baby go-cart that they could control.

[...]


Arguing about the innate human condition from the behavior of infants/children at a particular point in time doesn't seem likely to be persuasive.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Agree.
I have often fallen into the trap of arguing about "innate human nature" as a reaction to goose stepping Capitalist neo-fascists when they begin spewing the pro-Capitalist propaganda that "humans have to be taught to share/have a sense of community" as I, regrettably, did here.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
     Donnie is making more friends - (scoenye) - (29)
         ..Including the whole state of California - (Ashton)
         Re: Donnie is making more friends - (lincoln)
         He is despised in Europe. - (pwhysall) - (24)
             Can you answer this? - (mmoffitt) - (23)
                 Look closer - (scoenye)
                 I'd say not - (pwhysall) - (21)
                     Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                     Re: stealing land from the indians - (drook) - (19)
                         Us Commie types have always recognized the folly of "personal property". ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (18)
                             It's not all the same - (drook) - (17)
                                 Still, we can hope Mar-a-Lago will be under water! :) - (a6l6e6x)
                                 Neat analysis; as to intellectual 'property'.. - (Ashton)
                                 How, exactly, does your (3) differ from (4)? - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                     Answers - (drook) - (12)
                                         Nice try. - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                             Back atchya - (drook) - (7)
                                                 snarky LRPD sez - (Ashton) - (5)
                                                     It's about lawyers - (drook) - (2)
                                                         Thanks! Interesting parallels ..and your Example more revealing than you might know.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                             It's epidemic among computer geeks - (drook)
                                                     a lot of that is cultural, when I was in fargo there was an issue with somali refugees - (boxley) - (1)
                                                         But they still recognize private property, and have a system to transfer it -NT - (drook)
                                                 It is levels - (crazy)
                                             Infants have no fear of falling, initially, either... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                 Agree. - (mmoffitt)
                                         Excellent, clear exposition. Well done. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                 Re: It's not all the same - (dmcarls)
         Quote in Comments section of C&L - (lincoln) - (1)
             The rain could potentially undo the ultra comb-over! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)

Goose-bumps for any who Know.
71 ms