Hi Arlo Good discussion. I share my garden equipment with my neighbour and its very good. Of course private property at one time meant gaining freedom when it meant ending the monopoly of property held by the king. Might we look for that middle ground once again?
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Quality decline > [Craig] > What's notable is (a) we could do so voluntarily, without force (much less > violent revolution) and (b) we could do so regardless of what other blocks > do. > > [Arlo] > I've had this exact conversation with neighbors, but regarding a > snow-blower. > Since snow is often sparse, owning twenty snowblowers profits the > snowblower > manufacturer, but hurts each family. For example, if rather than spend > $600 on > my very own snowblower, I was able to spend $25 and garner all the > benefits, > I'd have $575 more dollars to save, spend on needed commodities, take a > vacation, etc. So would each of the other families. > > When I suggested this (this was years ago), the most common line I got was > "I'd > rather just own my own", I asked "why?", and in every case the dialogue > shifted > from "practicality" (which improves with communal ownership) to "its just > the > way it should be". In other words, "owning" is so ingrained in the > American > psyche, from years of bombast, consumerism, and advertiser driven > fetishism, > that simply saying "people are free to make this choice" is somewhat > narrow. > > Indeed, one reason our economy is so robust is simply that American's > don't > save. From makingmoneywork.us, "The average American saves less than 5%. > People > in other industrialized nations such as Canada, France, and Japan save 11% > to > 15%." > > Now, upfront I will say that I'd never argue that anyone should be forced > into > such a decision, by any means. But I think we need to confront a dialogue > that > is separatist, consumerist, acommunal and underscored by market propaganda > that > encourages this behaviors. That is why I think any revolution begins > bottom-up. > Only after people's visions have been swayed away from this > self-imprisoning > dialogue will people make these voluntary choices, and then true Marxism > may > finally one-day manifest itself. > > By the way, although I think strides have been made away from the > historical > evils of Industrialization under which Marx wrote, I think strides have > also, > sadly, been made towards increasing isolation in life, an isolation that > is > heralded as normal and desired by those enslaved by consumerist doctrine. > We > participate less and less in shared social space, the Commons (as Keith > mention), accepting as normal a daily motion that takes us from one > private > space to another. In Germany, I am reminded, often times at a restaurant > people > will join you at your table (this may be a larger, European activity), and > I > hear from my Persian friend that such sharing of space happens in Iranian > and > Turkish cultures as well. In America, such an act would be attrocious, a > violation of personal (aka private) space and an encroachment on our > desire to > restrict and control our interactions within a very narrow private sphere. > > Interestingly, the Internet gave many a chance to re-experience a social > space > that was obviously lacking from their lives. Chat groups, social rooms and > other shared spaces flourished in the early Internet. But the move has > been > away from true shared spaces to participation in restricted spaces that > are > safe, similar and non-threatening by virtue of walls that keep out any > with > real divergent ideas. (Note that I am talking about published "trends"). > > Okay, this little tangent was brought to you by Folgers. > > [Craig] > Which is freer: a society in which property can only be held in common or > one > in which you can have private property, share property or do without > property? > > [Arlo] > Private property actually decreases our overall freedom. When the lake is > community owned, anyone can use it at any time. When you buy that lake, no > one > can use it but you. > > We agree to this lessening of individual freedom because we hope, too, to > one > day buy our own little "sphere of exclusion", our own little slice of land > where we can (legally by force of government) keep other people away. So > we > move from unfettered mobility that by definition includes the social > presence > of others, to restricted mobility that is seen as worthy precisely because > of > the forced exclusion of others. > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
