Yep: all property is theft.
And so . . .
hugs
j
********
----------
>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Who pays, who benefits?
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 2:00 PM
>
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> Perhaps so. You said:
>>
>> "I will give you access to my water provided that you labour for me."
>>
>> The real question is how did it become "his" water?
>>
>> Harry
>
> Hi Harry,
>
> It's an interesting question. I hope you don't mind me putting it on the FW
> list.
>
> I would suggest that it became "his water" when water became a clearly
> recognized scarce resource. Probably, that would have happened when people
> made the transition from hunting and gathering to farming or pastoralism, or
> when an area that had been used by hunters and gatherers became converted to
> agricultural use. I recall seeing old movies which focused on fights over
> the water hole by feuding ranchers. There is priceless scene in the movie
> "Lawrence of Arabia" in which one tribesman shoots another simply because
> the latter drank from his well. Hunters and gatherers did not need much
> water; farmers and pastoralists did.
>
> The point is that proprietary rights are imposed on resources when they
> become scarce. In some cases, they would have been imposed equitably and
> fairly, in others autocratically by a dominant tribe or family.
>
> Almost everything that, if people thought about it at all, was once regarded
> as a free good has now become a scarce resource with an exchange value or
> "price" on it and proprietary rights attached to it. Thought has become
> "intellectual property". Given that it must now be a sink for pollutants as
> well as something we have always had to breath to stay alive, air is
> becoming a scarce resource with an exchange value. Even the climate is now
> entering that arena, as in the costs of global warming or the costs of
> keeping it down to moderate levels.
>
> This is where we have arrived after many thousands of years of population
> growth, innovation and social change. Many people, including some on this
> list, have argued that the end result will be cataclysmic. It may be, but I
> don't think it has to be. What would seem necessary is that we stop
> behaving like cowboys at the waterhole or tribesmen shooting rather than
> sharing, and begin paying attention to the full costs of what we are doing
> to ourselves and our environment. There has been some movement in that
> direction, but judging from the extent to which commitments made in Kyoto a
> few years ago have been honoured, we still have a long way to go.
>
> Best regards,
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
>
> Visit my rebuilt website at:
> http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ed wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think that it's profit orientation that's at the heart of the
>> >matter. It's more general than that, something I would call
> "exploitative
>> >relations." A very long time ago, when we lived in small groups as
> hunters
>> >and gatherers, we probably did not exploit each other partly because
> there
>> >was no need for it and partly because we had to work too hard just to
> stay
>> >alive. As population grew, and access to resources became an increasing
>> >problem, proprietary rights and concepts of who could access what
> developed.
>> >Systems of exchange, whether monetary or in-kind appeared -- "I will give
>> >you access to my water provided that you labour for me." From such
>> >exploitative relations, classes appeared and consolidated themselves. It
>> >would be nice if it could be otherwise, and it may still be otherwise for
>> >some isolated groups, but I'm afraid we've gone much much too far down
> the
>> >path we're on.
>> >
>> >Ed Weick
>> >
>> >Visit my rebuilt website at:
>> >http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
>> >
>> > > Oh, I'm well aware of the terrible burden on artists and others who do
> not
>> >make
>> > > money a priority. My remarks were intended to be directed toward the
>> > > possibilities if we did not live in a profit-oriented society.
>> > >
>> > > Selma Singer
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > r h wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Selma,
>> > > >
>> > > > Money is a necessity but so is work. The problem for me is that I
> work
>> > > > whether I am paid or not. I work to accomplish an artistic goal.
>> >But I
>> > > > do need money and will only live as long as I have it to do my work.
>> >They
>> > > > reason for life is accomplishment and anyone who does so merely for
>> >money is
>> > > > beyond my experience.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ray Evans Harrell
>>
>> ***************************************
>> Harry Pollard
>> Henry George School of Los Angeles
>> Box 655
>> Tujunga CA 91042
>> (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
>> ***************************************
>>
>
>
