And no, that is one version of capitalism. Go back, read history. Look where we started. Capitalism was the means to give each man ownership ability. It freed him from feudalism. He had a stake. But, if the mass of users voluntary surrender their stake to an oligarchy, it looks very much the same as pre-capitalist society, only marginally richer.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
yes but at the cost of losing the Commons. I have read history, I think we just have a different interpretation of it. I suppose we could argue the merits of private ownership too, but that's not the part I'm most concerned with. There is a dynamic and much needed balancing between private ownership and the Commons. Without the concept of the Commons, pure ownership is slavery. For instance, do you believe all humans should have equal access to fresh drinking water? Unfortunately fresh drinking water isn't equally distributed on the planet. Should something be done about this, or should "market forces" do their bidding?
If the market were left alone, and not protected by govt/corp partnerships (talking USA here) it remains to be seen what would happen with water. It's obscene that we have a shortage, when unbottling some of it and putting it back into the eco system could go a long way to correcting some of this. Here's my position. Anything that is not voluntary, eventually becomes slavery. Anything. If coercion must be used, it's less than ideal. but, the deck is so rigged right now, it's hard to imagine a world where our reality is different. I just don't believe in using a monopoly on force to make people do "the right thing" because, who gets to decide what that thing is, and how long until that becomes a burden we can't bear?
I wouldn't trust the "masses" to do the right thing either.
Well, being a"statist" is a popular option. But, you can't ask for liberty for yourself you're not ready to extend exponentially to everyone. So there you have it. Common property is great, if voluntarily established and if you go back to US history, you see, schools, libraries and parks, among other things, were originally done that way. But, then we decided force was better. As the financial teeter totter, tipped toward govt coffers through higher taxation and user fees, etc, the public demanded more coercion and public spaces became maintained by cities and states. How's that working out for us? You see the rich neighborhoods do well with that, they get attention from their "representatives" while poor neighborhoods get empty patches of grass that hardly ever gets cut. Meanwhile, private parks, museums and monuments remain some of the most beautiful, publicly accessible spaces in existence.
Yup. We agree. But I'm for a wholly new, and as of yet untried idea. ;) BTW, liberty is what sailors get at port. Sailors must still return to the ship. This is why the Statue of Liberty sits in the port and not on land. Freedom is what indentured servants got after their two year contract. There is yet another word that has recently been tainted, but that actually describes the state of each "Steemian" within the "steemit eco-system": sovereign. In the sense of sovereignty in which each human being is their own sovereign state. This is actually quite a different concept then a "free person" who simply has the ability to "own". But this doesn't address the issue of distribution and equality. As a sovereign I may have all the "rights" to fresh water, but if I do not have the capability of enforcing those rights, am i really sovereign?
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
https://books.google.com/books?id=-KiUDz9QdRsC&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=freedom+vs+sovereignty&source=bl&ots=7IRoC4GLct&sig=BQS5-sr6mcm2nvOKY6R3GDfmSVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTiN6ivY_ZAhVS2GMKHc84CYY4FBDoAQhNMAg#v=onepage&q=freedom%20vs%20sovereignty&f=false