Responsibility versus Ownership

[Phuein]

Hey.

 

I'm starting this debate thread, in order to clarify, for myself and other interested parties, which perspective would make more sense for anarchists to hold.

 

Libertarianism addresses the social issue using the term Ownership, followed by the term Property. Every person owns their own body, and thus their own body is their own property.

 

I am strongly bothered by this terminology; not as if it were an error for the dictionary. I am worried that the whole idea of property results in unnecessary violence. It seems too easy to take the damaging step from "owning myself" to "owning another." Naturally, I tackled this line of thought with examples, and quickly asked myself about children.

 

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

"CHILDREN AND RIGHTS"

 

In the above article, a well-thought libertarian addresses this same issue. He does so, however, by finding weak points in the argument itself, and not by examining it, as a fact of life. In much of the modern world, people of different cultures embrace the notion that they own whatever they can put their hands on. This behavior is innate in Humans and does not disappear, even if education and morality are applied.

 

I would like to suggest that we may want to shift our focus from Ownership and into Responsibility.

 

Responsibility, or Duty, is an ancient value that many cultures have embraced. Not to testify on that alone, but it is apparent (from Anthropological studies) that many tribal peoples view their life and surroundings as things to "take responsibility over" instead of as property to own. A well-known example comes from an historical Indian tribe leader, that when asked to sell his land responded by asking, how could he sell his land, if he does not own it.

 

My fear is that Ownership and Responsibility might be opposites! Owning something means that it is below me in importance, while taking responsibility for something, lets it be above me in importance. For example, if I own my children, then without social supervision, I would feel total liberty in how I treat them. On the other hand, if I take responsibility over my children, then I only do what I feel is helpful for them; excluding things that are for my own sake and may be negative to them.

 

In itself, this may not seem very threatening. Still, we can see plenty of examples, where people who embrace the ideology of ownership, take it "too far" and harm others, for righteous causes. This happens time and time again. The abusers are always self justified, because they simply "protected their property rights" one way or another. Whether it be land, where some may fight others over the right to own that piece of land; or even social abuse, where people may attack others for their pride, thinking that owning themselves translates as having the right to define justice for themselves, and towards others.

 

Should we not then aim for the right to take responsibility over our lives and surroundings?

 

Even if I may have no property at all, I would still see value in taking responsibility over everything I come in contact with.

 

Even if I am a part of the community, I would still want to contribute my ideas to others.

 

Even if all lands are owned by a few, shouldn't those who inhabit it, still have the right to take care of their homes and lives?

 

There is no law that can prevent the stronger from taking liberty from the weaker. There is, however, a natural law that makes us all care and want to help.

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It is impossible for a few people in power, regardless of their intentions, to take responsibility over so many others and such vast lands. Ownership is an empty term, that implies the will of any one person to control anything else.

 

I do not own my body, because I cannot control it. I take responsibility over my body, because I am the one with the most influence over it.

 

Am I simply being too nit-picky? Is there a fault in my logic that may not be so obvious? How do you review this issue?

 

Thanks for reading.

[Wesley]

Just a couple of questions:

 

1. If you say you cannot control your body, then who else does (assuming your body was used to write the above post)?

 

2. You have admitted that this may be splitting hairs. Do you have a particular thing against the idea of ownership? Maybe a negative connotation? What about responsibility? What do you think of when you hear responsibility? Why are you bothered so much by the terminology?

 

3. People often claim responsibility for others unjustly. This leads to statism, welfare schemes that do not work, and massive problems and bad incentives. I have not heard anyone claim ownership over another person in years. What do you think of this?

 

4. I see no way that owning the self can ever lead to owning others. In fact, universalizing self-ownership necessitates that you cannot own others, but they own themselves. Responsibility on the other hand seems to conflate easily into gaining control of others. What do you think of this?

 

5. Why do you think subservience is superior to mastery? (The paragraph where you claim ownership and responsibility are opposites, despite the idea that self-ownership negates your example as the children own themselves and thus cannot be owned)

 

6. What were your experiences of being owned and controlled as a child?

 

Descriptive answers would be very helpful in clarifying the position, and also letting me know where you are coming from.

[RuralRon]

 

I would like to suggest that we may want to shift our focus from Ownership and into Responsibility.

Interesting topic, thanks for raising it. I read about a third of the article you cited, so my commens here are primarily based on your OP.

 

You have put forth an excellent point IMHO, and your rationale appears sound. In particular the contrast between ownership and responsibility.

 

There is a growing trend in our society to reduce responsibility, to sever accountability for our actions. It's easy to see why that is advantageous for psychopaths and those with little or no capacity to empathize with others.

 

Corporations are a legal shield of responsibility as an example. Insurance can also be. Does insurance breed irresponsibility? That's isn't an easy question to answer.

 

I am looking forward to reading what others have to say to the ideas you put forth.

[Hannibal]

Ownership is an essential concept if men want to live as men; without it we would be living like cavemen. The enormous wealth that we are able to create, which we can see all arounds us in everything which contrasts cave-dwelling life, is the product of man's rational mind, guiding his actions. In order for man to invest his time and effort he must be sure that the fruit of his labour will be accessible to him in the future. Without that guarantee his efforts would not be rational, and he wouldn't waste his time & effort. This is why the concept of property and ownership is inherent in man's nature. Even the tribal peoples you talk about will most certainly embrace the concept of ownership when confronted with another tribe which seeks to appropriate the first tribe's food stock. We can see how essential the concept of ownership is when comparing the economic prosperity of countries with strong property rights, against those with weak property rights.

 

Given that ownership is axiomatic, and essential, i don't see significance in the rest of your distinguishing between owning and taking responsibility. The bad things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with a wilful disregard for objectivity with regards to morality & law. Each of those bad things you highlighted could be applied to a situation where people took responsibility instead of owning, as a poster already mentioned above. I also see no problem with regards to ownership leading to owning people - this is only a concern when the concept of ownership, why it exists, and therefore what it actually is, is not understood. This is no different from the argument for love being an irrational thing, and therefore potentially damaging. The concern that love is damaging is red-herring, obscuring a more basic misunderstanding of what love is.

[Phuein]

I'm glad to see responses to this topic.

 

 

I am looking forward to reading what others have to say to the ideas...

 

Me too!

 

Just a couple of questions:

 

...

 

Descriptive answers would be very helpful in clarifying the position, and also letting me know where you are coming from.

Ownership is an essential concept if men want to live as men; without it we would be living like cavemen...

 

Given that ownership is axiomatic, and essential, i don't see significance in the rest of your distinguishing between owning and taking responsibility. The bad things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with a wilful disregard for objectivity with regards to morality & law...

 

I would like to respond to both of you in a few paragraphs, both for readability, and because I feel that you both come from a similar perspective towards this topic.

 

First, about my own background. Like most people who are raised, either by chance or neglect, to be different enough from their family and society, most of my life I had to either obey under threat, or - when old enough - resist social pressures and pay the price for doing so. For my unique choices in life, I have been repeatedly attacked, by family and peers. I have come to realize that all the negativity thrown at me, comes directly from people oppressing other people, and they in turn passing it on to the next immediate and vulnerable person. I would not have considered myself, and others, unique, had I not seen other examples of more functional behavior. I have spent several years traveling the world and the web, in order to get the references I needed.

 

I keep my personal history only described in general, because I don't feel that my experience should be treated as unique, nor it being unique. I would like to touch on the other points raised, before I give my short conclusion - on how this relates to Ownership and Responsibility.

 

First, about whether I am right or wrong in my examples. Let me clarify:

- Not all tribes have food stocks.

- There is no guarantee for your safety or the safety of your property, even when ownership and property rights are declared.

- I disagree with the claim that countries/societies with stronger Ownership rights are better off. They are not.

- We do not have an "abundance of wealth" around us. Some of us only choose to think so, because they are not being particularly harassed for invading others' property rights.

- People who claim right behavior do not necessarily act by their claims/opinions, nor are they always able to do so.

 

I list these responses, because they all come down to one important understanding. Logic and reason do not reflect reality. What people say/think/believe/feel does not reflect how they will behave. Also, we are deeply immersed in our notions; and the only way to improve our bias, is by checking live examples. One example that disturbs me greatly, is how modern people view tribal peoples, even after anthropologists have spent many decades in answering how different tribes behave and interact.

 

How do I decide if something is my responsibility or not?

 

How do I decide if something is my property or not?

 

There is a different between the two questions! That is, the process in which we decide either of them. I would like to approach my conclusion with this explanation. I only have to decide that something is my property, when another threatens my access to or control of that property. Conversely, I only have to decide that something is my responsibility, when it requires me to invest time/resources that I would normally invest in my prior interests. Do you see the important difference in attitude between those two options? Ownership is offensive, while Responsibility is defensive.

 

I agree that love is, by definition, not harmful. I agree that Responsibility, when misunderstood, can cause harm. With that, I feel that there is a difference between the two approaches, and that I have explained it here, to the best of my ability.

 

But, what about Self? What about subservience?

 

As a young teenager, I was given the opportunity to spend several years practicing Self Defense. This, progressively, solved any issues I had with people physically aggressing towards me. However, I was still left frustrated and alone, in my world view and strong feelings.

 

Eventually, I came across the Tao Te Ching and Buddhist scriptures, which discussed - at length and creatively - the topics that I intuited. It was the first time I ever had someone agree with how I felt; even if that someone was long dead and often considered idealistic and fanatic. I feel strongly that defining my Self as my body is utterly wrong and solves nothing. For example, the Buddhists discuss how, when we observe our breathing, we see how we do not choose to breath, but rather we choose to interfere with breathing - an action that happens unwillingly.

 

Just as important as the Self, is the approach we have to our environment. Both traditions inspect how, in practice, those that are flexible, adapt, while those that are strict, break. They do not excuse wrong behavior - rather, they explain it, and give advice on how to manipulate yourself through conflict, to give the best results under the circumstance.

 

I don't attest to mastering any of this, personally, which is why I find it important to continue discussion with others and their experiences.

[Wesley]

Logic and reason do not reflect reality.

You are certainly going to have to explain what you mean by that statement.

[Phuein]

I apologize for my long posts. I am aware that this is not friendly towards casual readers. :-S Sorry!

[Wesley]

I read the entire post. That particular sentence stood out to me. If logic and reason do not have anything to do with reality, then there is no sense in continuing a logically reasoned conversation in trying to determine reality. Other things in your post we can address later, but I am asking: what methodology you would like to use, in place of logic and reason, in order to solve the problem of ownership vs. responsibility?

[Hannibal]

I read the entire post. That particular sentence stood out to me. If logic and reason do not have anything to do with reality, then there is no sense in continuing a logically reasoned conversation in trying to determine reality. Other things in your post we can address later, but I am asking: what methodology you would like to use, in place of logic and reason, in order to solve the problem of ownership vs. responsibility?

 

I agree. Logic is an observation of reality, and reason is the application of logic. 

 

"Conversely, I only have to decide that something is my responsibility, when it requires me to invest time/resources that I would normally invest in my prior interests."

 

So what happens when something that is your responsibility also is considered to be someone else's responsibility, and you both see very different outcomes? For example you see it as your responsibility to harvest the crop so that it goes into your belly, while another sees it as his responsibility to see that the crop goes into his own belly?

[Phuein]

Logic and reason do not reflect reality.

 

Logic and reason are useful tools, but just because we see something as reasonable or logical, doesn't make it practical. Our ideas are, more often than not, idealistic. That's why nothing should be assumed, without proper proof from real life. If no proof exists, then experimentation should take place. That's all I meant, in response to some unbased ideas here (assumptions about tribal peoples and personal values.)

 

So what happens when something that is your responsibility also is considered to be someone else's responsibility, and you both see very different outcomes?...

 

In case of conflict between people, like in any conflict, we assess the threat to our needs, and make sure that we leave less for chance. If I feel that my Ownership of the food is threatened, then I will have to prove or defend my ownership of it - as an ideal. But, if I feel that it is my Responsibility to supply myself food, then I take care of the food source first - being practical; and only then do I take care of the injustice enacted towards me - the ideal.

 

If, irrelevant to any need, I learn of injustice, then it is (to a degree) my responsibility to respond to it. I feel that this deviates from the topic, though.

[Wesley]

Logic and reason are useful tools, but just because we see something as reasonable or logical, doesn't make it practical. Our ideas are, more often than not, idealistic. That's why nothing should be assumed, without proper proof from real life. If no proof exists, then experimentation should take place. That's all I meant, in response to some unbased ideas here (assumptions about tribal peoples and personal values.)

The scientific method is that you 1. You create a theory. 2. You submit the theory to logic and reason (namely internal consistency) If a theory cannot stand by itself, then testing is not necessary 3. You create an experiment, or otherwise create a null hypothesis by which it can be tested and disproven. 4. You test the theory over and over from now until the end of time. (If testing is impossible, then you look for historical evidence or smaller examples when you can) 5. The longer the theory lasts and comes through tests successfully, the more certain and generally accepted it becomes.

 

Is there anything wrong with this method of approach? Obviously this may not be used to perfection, but this would be the way that disputes are attempted to be resolved and asking what is the logical consistency or asking what the evidence is would be justified and necessary to determine truth or falsehood.

[Hannibal]

Logic and reason are useful tools, but just because we see something as reasonable or logical, doesn't make it practical. Our ideas are, more often than not, idealistic. That's why nothing should be assumed, without proper proof from real life. If no proof exists, then experimentation should take place. That's all I meant, in response to some unbased ideas here (assumptions about tribal peoples and personal values.)

 

 

In case of conflict between people, like in any conflict, we assess the threat to our needs, and make sure that we leave less for chance. If I feel that my Ownership of the food is threatened, then I will have to prove or defend my ownership of it - as an ideal. But, if I feel that it is my Responsibility to supply myself food, then I take care of the food source first - being practical; and only then do I take care of the injustice enacted towards me - the ideal.

 

If, irrelevant to any need, I learn of injustice, then it is (to a degree) my responsibility to respond to it. I feel that this deviates from the topic, though.

 

If practicality is the goal, then this distinction that you're making is the exact opposite   Ownership is axiomatic, and the only problem that arises from ownership is when someone else decides they want what they haven't earned, and are willing to use force to take it. It's straight forward and easy. Everyone can be good guys, and anyone who want's to be a bad guy has to make a conscious and deliberate choice to do evil.

 

I suspect that i may have missed the point of your original post, because this all sounds like completely pointless playing with words rather than having any real substance to it.

[Phuein]

The scientific method is that you...

 

Westley, I completely agree and don't claim otherwise. If anything I've said comes across as a negation to that, then I warrant that it is not such, and should be examined again.

 

 

Ownership is axiomatic... Everyone can be good guys, and anyone who want's to be a bad guy has to make a conscious and deliberate choice to do evil.

 

I suspect that I may have missed the point of your original post...

 

I feel you have missed my point in this discussion. I relate strongly to your feelings of self-ownership, but I do think that there is great importance in defining that feeling properly and realistically, instead of using a popular term, such as "self ownership." It would not be the first time that people supported a "good" ideal, but because of their choice of words, logic and faction, they were reduced to maniac murderers. This is what we see happening with the supposed just USA, in its' military campaigns, today.

 

I will rephrase in short, in order to explain myself from another perspective.

 

The definition we have of self-ownership or ownership, today, is not clear cut. There is a lot of disagreement about it. It seems quite obvious what most folk really want. We want to be "not forced into anything" by anyone. I feel confident that we all can agree on that ideal.

 

What I am claiming, is that the ideal of Ownership, in practice, leads people into conflict. This is by necessity and is backed by historical accounts and contemporary events.

 

On the other hand, I am suggesting, that the ideal of Responsibility, in practice, assists in solving conflict, while allowing for the ideal of ownership.

 

Stefan talks a lot about aggression and the ideal of not initiating aggression. You see, the excuse for conflict, under an Ownership ideology is always Self Defense, which is often reduced into just Defense (of others.) Naturally, we don't have a solution to a conflict that arises from two sides leaning on the same ideology. They will always be "correct", logically. What we can do, is claim that the correct ideology to lean on is actually Responsibility, and then ask instead: "Who is responsible for what? In this specific conflict."

 

I feel strongly that the answer to that question will always bring forth a better conflict resolution, than any other directing question that may be asked.

[Wesley]

I am glad that we agree on methodology, I was a bit confused about your statement of logic and reason not reflecting reality, when I consider it a necessary step to reflecting reality, considering reality is logical and consistent.

 

If I am a leader and claim responsibility over a territory, and another leader claims responsibility over the same territory so we go to war, how does this solve anything? I think ownership denotes on possible owner (yourself) where responsibility almost necessitates competing "responsibilities" which would lead to more problems. People would be able to justly try to claim responsibility in opposition to ownership as responsibility replaces ownership.

 

Someone who is responsible for me may incarcerate me to prevent me from getting hurt. 

 

Someone who is responsible for me  could not allow me to do drugs or eat the food I want by claiming it is not in my best interest leading to something like the drug war.

 

I see nothing but problems coming out of this. In fact, I think states claim responsibility over their citizens and deny ownership which is exactly the problem rather than a solution.

 

Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong.

[Hannibal]

 

 Naturally, we don't have a solution to a conflict that arises from two sides leaning on the same ideology. They will always be "correct", logically. 

 

No. This is the problem I see with your proposal - it's based on an idea that 2 parties are right just because they both claim to be right, or even believe to be right. The reality is that truth is truth, and they both can't be right. What's the point in talking about "responsibility" (which is just playing with words), when the real solution is to observe reality, embrace truth, and recognise which party owns whatever is being disputed.

 

It is incredibly rare that arguments arise when 2 parties genuinely both feel that they are right. They arise because one or parties don't care who is actually right, and want to take what isn't theirs. There is in reality no confusion about ownership. Babies understand it because it is in man's nature. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

We'll probably just disagree. But you're wrong               

[Phuein]

Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong.

 

I don't think you are wrong. I think you are assuming things that we should not assume. All these issues you raise can happen with any ideology - even Ownership. Many people can claim ownership to the same thing and go down this path. The question should not be "What's the worst that can happen?" Rather, it should be "How can people abuse this ideology?"

 

Let's take common conflicts and apply both ideologies to them. For example, something close to heart; I want a piece of land to live on (nothing industrial), but the government, supposedly represented by its' citizens, claims ownership of all lands, and will not allow me to use any land, freely.

 

Ownership

I claim ownership of unoccupied land and so does the government representative. I, being the instigator on already claimed land, then ask: "Who really owns this piece of land? After all, nobody lives here, physically claiming it." The government's response is that they "Own all public lands, and so decide who can do what, for the good of all citizens." If I disagree, then I am "free to go to the court, and see if a judge (and jury, in some places) will agree" with my claim to the land. I cannot rally other people to my side, because nobody wants to bother for my claim of ownership. They have nothing evident to gain from me owning the land, compared to the gov' owning it, in general.

 

Responsibility

I claim responsibility for unoccupied land and so does the government rep'. In this case, I do not claim the right to live on the land! I leave that issue open for discussion, but only so far as I am recognized as a guardian of the land. So, as a result, the government are the ones to instigate the conflict. Now, I can choose to either persist - and suffer mistreatment, and eventually get sued; or, I can choose to sue them. I do not recognize their right of judgement, so I choose not to sue. If indeed I am sued and forced to bring my case to the court, then I can claim evidence of my work as a guardian - such as restoring flora and fauna and handling waste (trash) and intrusions (this can be a positive, as in hosting visitors.) Even if government rep's do the same, it does not deplenish from my own work and proof of responsibility. In this case, I can rally people to my side, because many people will support my work and the benefits they get from it (regardless of whoever else does the same.) Naturally, if I can gain right of guardianship, then I have a very strong base to (eventually) gain right of settlement.

 

At least, this is how I see it. I try to define how people usually behave, and then apply logical routes to those situations. The idea is to bet on routes that give my claim more base. After all, when you are right, people don't usually see where you are also wrong. That's why we have corrupted politicians everywhere, pulling public attention to their "good deeds," so that people ignore their bad deeds.

 

 

..The reality is that truth is truth...

 

I do agree with you, in the abstract realm of logic and philosophy. The problem is, that when it comes to people - in general, they are mostly intuitive and emotional, rather than logical and educated! So, while truth is truth, different folks choose different strokes, and that is, indeed, fair. There is no way to actually disprove any theory (as it would take endless variations on every variable.) One can only prove his own theory as practical.

 

So, if you can step away from being logically correct, try to see how the common (=idiot) person would behave - and then try to apply solutions.

[Wesley]

Government respect/ enforcement of responsibility or ownership is not a valid case. "Ownership doesn't work in a society where violence is used and ownership is not respected" isn't exactly a case against ownership.

[Hannibal]

Government respect/ enforcement of responsibility or ownership is not a valid case. "Ownership doesn't work in a society where violence is used and ownership is not respected" isn't exactly a case against ownership.

 

What he said.

You're basically suggesting a change of vocabulary in order to trick people into behaving nicely. Not something I'm interested in doing.

[Phuein]

I feel that my point is not quite reaching through.

 

You both speak as if Ownership is axiomatic, but I'm certain that if you honestly review your own life and behavior, you can see plenty of situations, in which you did not intuit that you had certain Ownership rights. Many cultures view Ownership as only a very limited thing. Some view women as the property of men, and all of them behave, as if it were the only thing that makes sense, until they learn of other cultures. Others, essentially small tribes, do not see the land as property at all, and cannot even begin to imagine doing so, as I quoted a couple posts back.

 

So, again, my point is that we choose our perspective, and that Ownership is one possible choice, while Responsibility is another. It is not simply a play on words to differentiate between those perspectives, as I have demonstrated with the previous examples. They display different results, in real life.

 

I would rather debate with more examples, but it's only possible when you allow that Ownership (your current ideal) is not axiomatic, and that different words do make a difference - otherwise, we are no better than crafty politicians (who manipulate words, such as "terrorism", and insist that you define people this way.)

[Mister Mister]

  It may help to give some clarification on the philosophical history of the word "property".  Originally property means a "trait" or "aspect" of something.  It was first used with regard to Human Rights by John Locke, who meant it in the same basic way.  So a bunch of wood lying in the forest is just an aspect of Nature.  But when a person invests time and energy into organizing that wood into a house, it becomes a "property of that person".  Property has since come to be used very loosely, and now we think of property as meaning "a thing that is owned".  Not sure if this is splitting hairs or not. 

 

  The important thing to realize, with regards to property, is that, no matter how you think about it, human beings have to make decisions about interacting with matter in order to survive.  This can be organized in many ways, but there is no way around it.  So when people say that "Natives don't understand the idea of property", I would argue this is not true.  The people who believe they can con them or cheat them out of their land, or violently kick them off their land, or mine natural resources at the expense of those peoples' lifestyles are the ones who don't understand the idea of property.

 

  Responsibility is an interesting wrinkle to bring to the situation.  One way of putting it, is that "when land becomes your property, you become a property of the land".  This is interesting, but it is still a question of how would this idea be negotiated or enforced in a society, and how would it look different than a private property system as we currently think of it?

 

  The issue is actually not so much about property as it is about conflict between people.  What are the standards by which a person can have a legitimate claim about another person's interaction with matter?  If a person is poisoning the river you drink from, perhaps you have a legitimate claim.  If they are killing animals for whom you claim responsibility, perhaps you have a claim.  If they are taking material from your house to build their house, you certainly have a claim.  If they are using drugs you don't like, perhaps you DON'T have a claim.  This is the fundamental concept behind most political issues.  I don't know what is the answer to how all conflicts should/can be resolved, or what principles designate what property belongs to whom, and what, if any property belongs to no one.  I do know that the way we do it know is insane and problematic.

 

  Hope that helps to put this stuff in a different light.

[Hannibal]

   The important thing to realize, with regards to property, is that, no matter how you think about it, human beings have to make decisions about interacting with matter in order to survive.  This can be organized in many ways, but there is no way around it.  So when people say that "Natives don't understand the idea of property", I would argue this is not true.  The people who believe they can con them or cheat them out of their land, or violently kick them off their land, or mine natural resources at the expense of those peoples' lifestyles are the ones who don't understand the idea of property.

 

 

Exactly. The concept of property exists as part of man's nature. There is no escape.

All the talk of tribes of nomads having no concept of property is nonsense. They only think that way so long as it's mutually to their benefits to do so. It's not that property doesn't exist, but rather that they choose to not lay claim to things - a very different kettle of fish. As soon as there is unbalanced external competition for resources which were previously regarded as communal, then suddenly that tribe will have changed it's tune. 

[Phuein]

 Hope that helps to put this stuff in a different light.

 

Thanks for adding your input to the conversation. I'm sure it will help others relate better to the ideas here.

 

I agree to the general perspective you guys both present, that it is indeed a fact of life that we must interact and lay claim to our environment in different ways. The idea of "Non-Ownership" is as ridiculous as it is non-existent. I also agree that what we really try to approach here is how to handle conflicts. Naturally, without conflict, ideologies and perspectives don't really matter.

 

What I don't agree with, and try to present the case for in this thread, which I have not seen reflected yet in any response, is the idea that Ownership is a minor case of Responsibility. In other words, as long as we ignore our approach to Responsibility, we will not solve the conflict of ideologies regarding property rights and Ownership.

 

- - -

 

I see that my claim has come across too harshly. I do not claim that tribal peoples do not understand property rights and Ownership. They do and that is self evident. I claim that they do not see everything they interact with as Owned; neither do they see it as Shared. I suspect that just as they see themselves as entities that cannot be Owned, so do they see the land, water, and other things they consider sacred. Too sacred to be Owned, privately or shared.

 

I give it as an example, because if we put excuses and blame aside, we can all agree that having everybody define Ownership in an equal manner - at all times, is not possible. This impossibility is exactly why people, who were made free and lived free, so often turned into slaves and slave-masters.

 

Therefor, I suggest we take a step back and see what affects the way people choose to define Ownership. My conclusion is that Responsibility is what affects Ownership, and that arguing for a Negation of Responsibility could end this clash of ideologies.

 

What is Negation of Responsibility?

 

I cannot insist any positive idea on another person. Saying that someone must do something, a positive claim, is unfair and does not work. I'm sure we all agree to that, generally.

 

However, I can claim, at least, that someone must not do something. I don't need to force myself on another person, in order to have them not do something. An example would be using a fence. With a fence I can avoid conflict with others, just by attempting to deny certain events, such as touching or seeing something that I don't want others to touch or see. It ain't perfect, but it sure does work, and that's why we use it.

 

In other words, I am Negating the other's actions without direct conflict. In my view, people act according to their sense of Responsibility. So, as long as my effort to Negate is greater than their feeling of Responsibility, then they will not act. In this way, I avoid conflict (temporarily.) This is how I make Ownership irrelevant to conflict; by making it not worthwhile to pursue every little bit of property someone might feel they own.

 

This is exactly what governments do to people, only they do so with violence. I suggest we do the same, because it works, only that we do it with bargaining, instead. We bargain Ownership rights. No violence included. We can settle conflicts in regard to Ownership, by simply making people consider the worth of their pursuit. The side that feels more strongly about their Responsibility, in regard to their right of Ownership in a certain case, will be the last one to give up.

 

To conclude, "the worth of my pursuit" is exactly equal to my sense of Responsibility. This is the best definition I can summon.

 

How is this useful?

 

Realizing the above, we see that if we construct the "fences" that would make it not worthwhile for the aggressors (gov') to create conflict, then we win. Eventually, following this example that works, others will do the same. Eventually, there will be little room for aggressors in any society. Idealistic but practical.

 

Let's examine a few samples of "fences" against the government that already exist:

 

1. Social pressure works. I come from the land of the Jews and can testify to how well it works. Extreme social pressures can create ridiculous situations, just because it works, so well. In the West, there are certain areas that are simply not worth the intervention of the gov'. I noticed that, while traveling and comparing a hub of evil like Washington D.C. to a no-where town somewhere in Arkansas. Government presence was pretty much non-existent down south in many areas.

 

2. Profit blinds & binds people. This includes the gov'. Bribing officials is standard method for those who wish to gain power (self ownership.) After they are bribed, they are under threat of having the truth revealed, and then cannot act without great risk to their person (ironically, the risk comes from their owners.) I recall a farmer in the US, who did some illegal construction on his land, and by having the sign "No Trespassers" on the road to his place, got all officials to back away. They were under threat of a private lawsuit for actual money by entering under that sign.

 

3. Predators always prey on the weakest. You don't have to be well defended, in order to be secure from the gov'. You just have to be distinctively more defended than most others, to make attacking you not worth the effort. The mafia - which I refer to as competitive governments - are the proof of concept. They have lots of lawyers and protection in place. The gov' goes after the "small fry," because of that, and even then the mafia lords often rescue those front-line people from behind the scenes, with money and lawyers.

 

4. It takes Liability to be responsible, legally. Public domain content, free gifts, abstract bodies (Corporations / Virtual Personas), virtual property and many other interactions that are simply not defined and so not valued, cannot be judged. Religious organizations are forever surviving and doing well, because of this simple trick. They offer their services for free: Church, Books, Conversation, Singing, Monetary support and more. And, just like modern content providers online, they use influence ("brain washing"), in order to make profit. Donation funds are the all-mighty basis for all black markets out there. Anything that is not an official signed deal, while risky, is also uncontrollable by third parties.

 

I'm sure there are many more good tactics out there to distance us from aggressors. Please, add your own, if you follow this line of thought. If you don't, and feel that something is amiss, do share.

[Mister Mister]

hrmm well that is all interesting, but I'm a bit lost.  how did we go from talking about responsibility and ownership to tactics for avoiding the government?

[TDB]

I define ownership as the justified ability to decide who may control an object. We could give this another name, but the issue remains, who may control an object, and who decides? Whoever decides who may control an object in effect claims ownership, under that model. Disputes among rival owners get resolved in one way or another, leading to either a reasonably coherent set of rules of property, or an incoherent mess.

 

Other people want to replace language of ownership with that of possession or justified possession. The OP wants to use language of responsibility. Seems to me it is just semantics, as the underlying mechanism remains. Some person or persons controls each object at each instant. It can be used, stored, shared, loaned, traded, modified, abandoned, destroyed, etc. People can have disputes about these actions. The dispute will be resolved in a way that makes sense or not. Maybe this is what a different poster meant by saying ownership is axiomatic.

 

I suppose I should apologize for this drive-by post. I skimmed the thread, which is rude of me. I can't help feeling that I am contributing something, but I may have fooled myself. Most of the issues raised did not help me understand what seems like the main point to me, which is, how would anything be different if we switch to "responsibility" instead of "ownership"?

 

The original poster addressed this indirectly, with an example of a person who lived on and used land which he claimed not to own, so he could not sell it. If someone else began using part of that land as if the newcomer owned it, or someone tried to evict the occupant from the land, who would dispute that in the local system of dispute resolution? By my model, the person who requests the resolution of the dispute also in effect claims ownership. If the person occupying the land has all the other powers of ownership, that is he could abandon it and leave, he could allow someone to use the land, or disallow someone else, plant a tree, uproot a tree, etc. then he is in fact the owner. We can change the name, but why? "Responsibility" has a broader and vaguer meaning, and is a useful word on its own. Use it if it makes sense in context, by all means, but why confuse things by pretending it can replace "ownership?"

 

Perhaps I would reinterpret the OP as meaning something like this: responsibility goes along with ownership in all cases, and even more so in some cases, such as ownership of land. People will suffer when land owners act irresponsibly. If a land owner treats land as beneath him, or as having no importance or significance different from that of a shoe, this sort of reckless thinking invites danger.

[TDB]

 

 

Thanks for reading.

I went to your blog. Is there no way to comment there?

Your definition of ideology doesn't match the way it is commonly used, or even as used by Marxists, who have a particularly jargony take on it. Many people use it as a pejorative, and also in a context where "ideological" is treated as the complement of "pragmatic." That is, pragmatic action ignores ideology and just tries to "get the job done" while ideological action ... doesn't? I suspect this all boils down to people disagreeing about how the world actually works, and so my favorite definition of "ideology" is "a system of ideas about how the world works."

But by this definition, pragmatism is never opposed to ideology, rather different persons will disagree how to accomplish some end if they have different ideologies. The people who oppose ideology and pragmatism implicitly hold that all truth claims about facts and theories involved in "getting the job done" are clear and obvious to all. Yet if things really were so obvious, why the "ideological" opposition? Perhaps the idea is that ideological persons prefer the value of maintaining ideological purity to the practical outcome. Maybe people use this rhetorical technique to obscure the real issues, which are, do we know how to do this, and what is the real cost?

I read the entire post. That particular sentence stood out to me. If logic and reason do not have anything to do with reality, then there is no sense in continuing a logically reasoned conversation in trying to determine reality. Other things in your post we can address later, but I am asking: what methodology you would like to use, in place of logic and reason, in order to solve the problem of ownership vs. responsibility?

Pure logic, formal logic, applies to abstractions and has only as much to do with reality as your premises do. You can apply valid logic to anything, even unicorns. Stef usually includes "evidence", that anchors things to reality. Reason, I would hope is reality based, but common usage has warped the word to mean almost anything (usually a straw man created by someone arguing against it), so in order to use it meaningfully, it helps to give your own definition.

[Wesley]

Pure logic, formal logic, applies to abstractions and has only as much to do with reality as your premises do. You can apply valid logic to anything, even unicorns. Stef usually includes "evidence", that anchors things to reality. Reason, I would hope is reality based, but common usage has warped the word to mean almost anything (usually a straw man created by someone arguing against it), so in order to use it meaningfully, it helps to give your own definition.

You seem to have missed my post right after that went through the scientific method and included evidence and experimentation.

[Phuein]

hrmm well that is all interesting, but I'm a bit lost.  how did we go from talking about responsibility and ownership to tactics for avoiding the government?

 

I seem to have disguised myself as an abstract philosopher so well that you decided I don't have an agenda! Ha! Well, I do have an agenda. I'm interested in using these ideas, as the logical basis to moving onward with modern life. I would take absolutely no interest in the whole idea of Responsibility (or Ownership), if I could see no way of using it in practice. I suspect this is all very useful, though.

 

I define ownership as the justified ability to decide who may control an object...

Your definition of ideology doesn't match the way it is commonly used...

 

I'm going to assume you are referring to a recent blog post of mine, when you speak of ideology. It isn't directly discussed in this thread, so assuming that we can resolve the comment issue in my blog (private message,) then it's better left for the blog.

 

I'm not sure if you really did miss out on a lot of important posts in this thread, or if you decided to just come at this thread from your own perspective, regardless. To be fair, I won't insist on actually reading these chunks of text, and instead try to respond directly.

 

It is evident that Ownership and Responsibility are two different and separate terms. To summarize, I can own something but not consider myself responsible for it, and vise versa. An exceptional claim I make, in order to emphasize the importance of Responsibility, is that conflicts between people are better solved through considering Responsibility, rather than Ownership (this includes conflicts with the gov'.)

 

I'll use this post to examine this clash of ideas from yet another angle. For example, let's say that we live in Stefan's wet dream of a NAP & DRO society. I do intend to, eventually, discuss this topic live with Stefan, by the way. So, let's now assume a conflict. A common conflict would be land rights. I definitely know that it's the first thing on my mind, being the basis for human life.

 

In this example, I decide to homestead a small plot of land, and another person, a neighbor, claims to everyone around us that I am occupying his private property, without his permission. Now, let's map the conflict from discovery to conclusion, in both cases:

 

Ownership

The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my claim. We approach a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization) that serves our locale. For the sake of the example, let's say that the neighbor previously planted and yearly collects from fruit trees in that plot. Because of those fruit trees, which all of us would agree he really does have rights to, we have a conflict about the land itself, which is more than just those trees. The solution to this depends on local custom, instead of any discussion. If it decrees that "fruit tree farming" a plot grants land ownership, then I lose. Otherwise, if it decrees that "fruit tree farming" does not decree land ownership, then I win. Regardless, I am dependent on local custom, and don't actually have a way to defend myself. It's a rather offensive scenario.

 

Responsibility

The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my right of occupation. We approach a DRO that serves our locale. Again, for the sake of the example, the neighbor uses his trees as evidence. The solution in this case, however, depends on if I can prove that I am willing to do whatever is necessary, in order to have him work his trees, as he had always done before. This is due to the fact that claiming duty over (the need to work) the fruit trees does not necessitate ownership of the land. So, logically, there would be no pre-defined rule or custom that enforces one way or another. The resolution would be case dependent, only. This is a very flexible and not oppressing scenario, where my opinion and will count.

 

For those that say that I can have either solution in either case, let us examine evidence from our own lives. Do people get to use private land fairly, when it comes to a conflict in court? This, naturally, excludes all non-conflict cases, where good honest people manage other people on their land, fairly. Also, if the land is either "public" or the plaintiff has no property rights to it, then does the DRO or court or public rule in their favor? Notice how many land abuse (pollution, destruction) cases, end with those who harm neighboring communities, getting no serious penalty or relevant action against them.

 

If we are not ideological about this, and see that people (courts etcetera) do rule according to property rights, usually regardless of who is in the wrong, just because it's easier (ownership means full rights), then we realize just how important it is to present a conflict in the most sensible or profitable or practical or least violent way, for the benefit of all. Put yourself in the shoes of either defendant or plaintiff, fairly.

[TDB]

I seem to have disguised myself as an abstract philosopher so well that you decided I don't have an agenda! Ha! Well, I do have an agenda. I'm interested in using these ideas, as the logical basis to moving onward with modern life. I would take absolutely no interest in the whole idea of Responsibility (or Ownership), if I could see no way of using it in practice. I suspect this is all very useful, though.

 

 

I'm going to assume you are referring to a recent blog post of mine, when you speak of ideology. It isn't directly discussed in this thread, so assuming that we can resolve the comment issue in my blog (private message,) then it's better left for the blog.

 

I'm not sure if you really did miss out on a lot of important posts in this thread, or if you decided to just come at this thread from your own perspective, regardless. To be fair, I won't insist on actually reading these chunks of text, and instead try to respond directly.

 

It is evident that Ownership and Responsibility are two different and separate terms. To summarize, I can own something but not consider myself responsible for it, and vise versa. An exceptional claim I make, in order to emphasize the importance of Responsibility, is that conflicts between people are better solved through considering Responsibility, rather than Ownership (this includes conflicts with the gov'.)

 

I'll use this post to examine this clash of ideas from yet another angle. For example, let's say that we live in Stefan's wet dream of a NAP & DRO society. I do intend to, eventually, discuss this topic live with Stefan, by the way. So, let's now assume a conflict. A common conflict would be land rights. I definitely know that it's the first thing on my mind, being the basis for human life.

 

In this example, I decide to homestead a small plot of land, and another person, a neighbor, claims to everyone around us that I am occupying his private property, without his permission. Now, let's map the conflict from discovery to conclusion, in both cases:

 

Ownership

The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my claim. We approach a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization) that serves our locale. For the sake of the example, let's say that the neighbor previously planted and yearly collects from fruit trees in that plot. Because of those fruit trees, which all of us would agree he really does have rights to, we have a conflict about the land itself, which is more than just those trees. The solution to this depends on local custom, instead of any discussion. If it decrees that "fruit tree farming" a plot grants land ownership, then I lose. Otherwise, if it decrees that "fruit tree farming" does not decree land ownership, then I win. Regardless, I am dependent on local custom, and don't actually have a way to defend myself. It's a rather offensive scenario.

 

Responsibility

The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my right of occupation. We approach a DRO that serves our locale. Again, for the sake of the example, the neighbor uses his trees as evidence. The solution in this case, however, depends on if I can prove that I am willing to do whatever is necessary, in order to have him work his trees, as he had always done before. This is due to the fact that claiming duty over (the need to work) the fruit trees does not necessitate ownership of the land. So, logically, there would be no pre-defined rule or custom that enforces one way or another. The resolution would be case dependent, only. This is a very flexible and not oppressing scenario, where my opinion and will count.

 

For those that say that I can have either solution in either case, let us examine evidence from our own lives. Do people get to use private land fairly, when it comes to a conflict in court? This, naturally, excludes all non-conflict cases, where good honest people manage other people on their land, fairly. Also, if the land is either "public" or the plaintiff has no property rights to it, then does the DRO or court or public rule in their favor? Notice how many land abuse (pollution, destruction) cases, end with those who harm neighboring communities, getting no serious penalty or relevant action against them.

 

If we are not ideological about this, and see that people (courts etcetera) do rule according to property rights, usually regardless of who is in the wrong, just because it's easier (ownership means full rights), then we realize just how important it is to present a conflict in the most sensible or profitable or practical or least violent way, for the benefit of all. Put yourself in the shoes of either defendant or plaintiff, fairly.

You are arguing for a different set of property ownership rules. It is still ownership, or at least, using that word is as appropriate as changing to another word.

 

Your example seems odd. You are building a homestead in the guy's orchard, and the use is not conflicting? Maybe you should try a complementary case, say apple orchard and beekeeping. Then google the coase theorem.

[Phuein]

Your example seems odd. You are building a homestead in the guy's orchard, and the use is not conflicting?...

 

So, you're saying that just because a person plants trees somewhere, then that means they have the right to the entire land forever? Even if the only use for the land is collecting the trees' produce in-season?

 

It's a common mistake to look for a one-answer-to-all-problems in an ideology. Applying Ownership to everything just doesn't work. It's the reason we have conflict in modern society; people disagree about who owns what, even when there aren't actually any shortages in necessities.

 

Just as two parents have the same level of Responsibility towards their mutual child, and neither of them independently owns the child, so does the same principle apply to land, living beings (including edibles), water, air and more. There is no clear-cut line, in this matter. Ancient and modern societies prove that, in practice. We have disputes and judgement, in order to solve the endless occasions in which it is not clear who owns what and to what extent.

[Phuein]

I feel that the idea presented in this thread is still not properly described. Continuously thinking about this idea and the discussion we have had here, I would like to add some more detail or boundaries, here.

 

We can't "own our actions," because these cannot be traded. If I were to kill another person, then I could not simply sell the action to another, who will have to accept the punishment on himself.

 

We must be responsible for our actions, because the results of these may require a followup response by us, who understand them best. Otherwise, others who do not understand the actions - paired with their results, are much more likely to respond in an ignorant manner.

 

It is my intent to debate the possibility that when conflict over ownership arises, then if we were to take a step back and review the conflict through a greater perspective, we would see that it can be easily resolved through the understanding of where responsibilities stand.

 

Just as ownership must be socially accepted to be worthwhile its' place as an idea, so does responsibility have to be socially accepted to work. What is suggested here is that it is easier to decide if a person is responsible, rather than if that person has ownership.

[Phuein]

I insisted on getting more perspectives on this issue, so I emailed Stefan with hopes for a rebuttal of sorts. I got this:

 

I think that everything that is enforced rather than inflicted is superior, [so] I think we agree.

 

My email may not be in utter accordance with the thread, although I tried to represent the thread as best as I could. So, if you're wondering, here is my email message to Stefan:

http://pastebin.com/V4wNn1SM

 

Now, I can see where Stefan is going with this. If I understand him correctly, he's basically taking this discussion into his own realm of ideas, and saying that he'd rather enforce a contract, than inflict his opinion, on another. I agree about that.

 

Still, I'm not satisfied with the conclusions, so far. So, if you take any specific interest in the topic, please join me and comment on the following summary, here:

http://www.assafkoss.com/2013/10/responsibility-vs-ownership.html