private property?

[Tedob1]

In a thread started by redthefed:

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=238276

He quotes:

Anything that you declare your own, you steal from everyone else.

- Joe Kensok

So I ask:

Does everything belong to everyone, by natural birthright, or does the chaotic nature of existence justify private property. Life demands that we take to exist, but where does the need to exist end and greed and avarice begin? Is there a line of demarcation?

Is communal property on a global scale something we should be striving for, or is the instinctual desire to take and hold property right, because that is the nature of man.

[t2k2]

I think that it is the nature of man. We live in a society where a man is measured by his monetary accomplishments, mostly. Many people look at others who have not reached financial independence as failures - as people who did not "make it." This is really shallow in my opinion. My great Grandmother lived to the age of 94 still in debt to my knowledge, but I feel that she was not cheated in life. She lived. She even got to see her first great great grandchild - my eldest son. Not by a longshot do I claim to know much about it, but isn't this why Communism was conceived? Hasn't it been all but dismissed as a way of society? At least, it seems that way in the world in which we live today. Then again, I do live in "Captialist" America, so maybe I'm not thinking "outside the box." I am not saying that I altogether disagree with it (I don't know enough about it to say so.).

[Tedob1]

personally i like private property, i just wanted to see what others thought. their seems to be some overtones in the un's actions that could indicate a move toward doing away with it and im concerned. i dont want to get into a discussion on the un though, im more interested in views on private property.

[Tiger Shark]

While private property itself is not in the nature of man - a higher position in the "pecking order" or pack is in the nature of all the more sophisticated creatures on the planet. The aquisition of private property implies a certain wealth or power which in turn implies a higher position in the pecking order or pack thus it becomes, in its own way, the nature of man.

He who dies with the most toys wins.......

Let the UN try to impose this utopian garbage and they will find that they lose the support of those nations which have lots of toys - which, funnily enough, are the nations upon whom they depend the most for the cash handouts..... Communism, which is what they are talking about, has yet to improve the lives of it's subjects as a whole everywhere it has been tried - and it will continue to do so as a direct result of my first paragraph..... How difficult a concept is this for them not to get it.

Private property is the one single tangible thing that indicates a person's success or failure in a society where the people themselves are in control of their success or failure. It's ok to say "I'm poor but happy" but I can't touch or see your happiness.... I can however see the $500,000 house you live in and know to a fair level of certainty that it is not being faked. That's what I mean by the "single tangible" phrase above.

I'm all for private property - being English, my home is my castle and it will be defended as will my right to own things. In my experience those who claim to shun private property are those who cannot keep up with those of us who are successful in the aquisition of said so their stance is merely a sham to hide their own inadequacies.

[dspeidel]

Originally posted here by Tedob1
personally i like private property, i just wanted to see what others thought. their seems to be some overtones in the un's actions that could indicate a move toward doing away with it and im concerned. i dont want to get into a discussion on the un though, im more interested in views on private property.

I agree I think private property is a good thing. I think it is possible to describe a Utopian society in which all things are shared by all (socialism/communism) and all people benefit. But I think the reality is that in those societies we end up with "some pigs are more equal then others" -George Orwellian Animal Farm. I think this is due inherantely to the ease of corruptablity of human nature. I think a system that encourages competition and private property is better and harder to corrupt (need to include freedom of speech and press).

Cheers,
-D

[mathgirl32]

I agree with Tiger Shark's argument on private property and the pecking order. Very good illustration.

As far as sharing the wealth, Utopian societies, Communism, and leveling the playing field (UGH!!) goes, I think history has shown us these concepts do not work. How can a country, a people, a civilization sustain itself when all incentives, promotions, recognition, and pay for hard work, diligence, dedication, genius, research, responsible living, education, etc., are taken away and distributed among the masses???

(sorry for the long comma-delimited sentence!)

[SarinMage]

things are just things, you'll always have things, your things are my things, and mine are yours.

i dont pay attention so much to whats my "personal" belonglings... i share them with just about everyone.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted here by mathgirl32

As far as sharing the wealth, Utopian societies, Communism, and leveling the playing field (UGH!!) goes, I think history has shown us these concepts do not work......

China's own form of Communism seems to be doing rather well. One of the worlds leading Super Powers, a more than capable Military force and are set to become the 3rd Nation to launch a man into space. Not bad for a "Commie" country.


When you look at The US as the worlds leading democratic country I fail to see how it's called a "success"....10% of the richest people control 80% of all the wealth, 48 million without health care, 45 million living in poverty.....


Anyway, it seems I've taken this thread off topic..........

[The Old Man]

History seems to indicate to me that "commune" living works if there is someone with a big club making sure everyone works reasonably equally. Everyone has a job to do and the little wheels turn the big wheels and eventually the society develops power. However, take away the big club, and eventually the hardest workers, the deepest thinkers, the shakers and movers realize they are working their butts off so a bunch of other guys can sit on their duffs and drink whatever the brew is and smoke whatever the weed is. When that realization sets in, those hardest working members eventually decide it's too much trouble and they slack off, which in turn creates less "stuff" to spread around which results in less brew and less weed, and produces not much of anything cohesive.
On the other hand, if those shakers and movers can see a bit of reward for their higher level of production for the society, then they will continue to work harder. Most of you are familiar with the term "Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs". On the bottom (necessary for survival) are things like food, clothing etc. The top layer of Mazlow's Pyramid is the need for recognition and success, whatever that may be defined as in any given instance.
Take away the personal success, whether it be more money, a bigger house, a nicer car, or being able to build a computer or stroke the software better than everyone else, so they have to come ask you questions, and when there is no chance for personal achievment, advancement, or other tip-of-the-hierarchy needs, and the pyramid in that society will not be as high as it could be.
If anyone thinks there is not a social hierarchy in the pecking order of any country on earth, take a closer look.
And if you don't believe that, if you subscribe to the theory that everything belongs to everyone, then i want to borrow your new 4wd for a week; there is a backcountry area i want to photograph in the winter, i'm too lazy to walk in, and i don't want to take my own car into all that mud and stuff to get there... and while you're at it, do you have any spare film, or an extra camera i can use?

[Evil Moo]

In a sense we strive for communes, living equally in harmony. This is only really present though in idealism. While we would like everything to be fair/equal, we also feel the need to better ourselves whether it be material or personally. Thus, some people are better or more successful at this tipping the scales. It's natural selection and won't ever change. As long as we are actively concious in our existance in evolution as humans, it will always be thus. And personally, I agree with it. Even in a commune system it still comes down to what the few say over the others. So really, "I" still comes before "U". This is not entirely bad though. The US is a great example of the "line of demaraction".