The PRAXIS of property

[nemomen]

@popobawa4u

I prefer opt-in systems with a meta-framework which makes them all non-exclusive.

Those words mean things to me, but not in that combination. I don’t think I’m alone there.

@popobawa4u

There is no pressing reason for anybody to prevent others from implementing what system they think works best.

I dunno, but there are plenty of reasons to preserve certain kinds of social order and stability, this is too abstract for me to know what that means, though. There’s rubber with no road.

@popobawa4u

But no, what I am talking about is not additional capriciousness. I see it as the replacement of capriciousness with the ability of people to live systematically if that’s what they choose/need/want.

Let’s say you lived in a world where that’s never going to happen. What would you do then? Because it kind of sounds like your ideals might maybe be an exercise in frustration and you might want a new hobby? I can’t say since I really often have no idea what you’re talking about when you get abstract. I think that might indicate something though about the possibility of your ideas being widely discuss-able. I mean I’ve read some Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and Rawls and I can tell you what they’re about. I’ve done other things that point to me being able to figure abstract stuff out. And lots of your sentences are unparseable for me. I’m just sayin’, maybe you might want to apply your intellect to something new for a while. You’re obviously bright, maybe you’d be better off doing something that other people would actually be able to understand and participate in more?

[enso]

@popobawa4u

As I have explained to @enso and others countless times, anything only remain a philosophy so long as it is not put into practice.

er?

backs out of thread

[popobawa4u]

@enso

backs out of thread

Aww… I like talking with you, Al! I respect that you are often able and willing to engage me on your terms, and still be honest and respectful. It’s a great example to folks that people can have some stark differences and still treat each other with courtesy and civility.

[enso]

I like you too. I’m not sure if I have much to contribute to this particular thread though.

P.S. I hate scrabble.

[nemomen]

@enso

I hate scrabble.

I will not use Scrabble as a generic example of a game, I now see the digression risks involved more clearly.

[enso]

@nemomeno

I will not use Scrabble as a generic example of a game, I now see the digression risks involved more clearly.

I play a lot of tabletop role-playing games though. Hell, I’m pretty sure I still own ludomantic.org.

[nemomen]

I really need to get back to playing tabletop RPGs. It’s been way more than a decade. Last time I played AD&D 3rd Edition was a new thing. I loved the campaigns my old DM made, and now I even have the bandwidth to do it.

[tachin1]

@popobawa4u

Truth be told, what I am obsessed about is not the philosophy of property, but rather the practice of property.

Let me say this upfront, you’re cool with me. I don’t want you to think I’m critiquing you personally. Only the ideas you bring forward as best I can understand them.

Furthermore, it must be said, I consider this a worthwhile conversation otherwise I’d ignore it and move on.

Let’s define our terms.
Property :
The way I’m coming at this, property needs to be owned, otherwise it is not property. Communal property is owned by some community for the use of members of that community. Could said community destine their property for public use? Yes, because they own it. If it wasn’t owned, a different community could then allow the use of that property for whatever use they want, excluding whoever they want. It would now be owned by community #2.

How is property established? By force.
How is society established? By force.
It sounds nice to say that there exists some social contract to which all parties have agreed and that this is how we got to where we are. But this is not at all how society is put together. It is forced into existence by power, economic, moral and physical.

Just as borders keep people out, they also keep people in.

My assumption, when speaking of society is that it us a thing where random people are thrown together and where they all help each other on some level while they compete in others. They do this not because they agree, but because they are forced to do so.

To opt out of society is not to be free of it. It’s a benefit the society affords you.
I also believe that wanting to opt out of society is a first world problem. The idea that someone will be able to survive while only associating with only a group of like minded people or with no one at all is only possible in a society that will offer some guarantees that allow for this.

Should a person find themselves living in one of the poorest parts of the world, the priority will be survival, society will find a use for this person and shelter him or it will spit him out and he will die. (that society could be a criminal society, it’s still a society)

These are some of the constraints I believe exist when talking about organizing societies on a macro level. My impression is that you don’t consider that forming a society is more than just an agreement between the people that wish to participate, there needs to be a way to enforce those agreements (now power dynamics come in to play) and that there are constraints on what is possible (hence politics)

There must be better ways to organize than what we have, but the ideas that will change the world for the better need to be global, anything possible within today’s society by simply opting out is a regression, and only possible by maintaining things as they are.

/rant.

[enso]

See the D&D thread I opened yesterday.

[popobawa4u]

@tachin1

Let’s define our terms.

Semantics! D: (just kidding!) Yes, that’s always a good idea. The definitions you put forth seem sound enough. I am still not very keen on it as a concept. I think it’s far less efficient than letting things flow to where they are needed. The one practical feature of people’s fascination with property, markets, money, etc is the concept of measuring and managing resources. But, perhaps ironically, the usual versions of those systems seem to be quite bad at it! As it is, resources only ever seem to be managed by accident.

The relationship between property and force is much of what interests me about the whole “Bundy militia” business. As I pointed out, in many other contexts, people really seem to take it for granted that government installations are occupied by armed sentries. Rather than being truly systematic, incidents like this demonstrate how much instead depends upon roles, which I think introduces many layers of personal problems to these things which would not otherwise be at issue.

@tachin1

But this is not at all how society is put together. It is forced into existence by power, economic, moral and physical.

Perhaps. I always maintain that “society” is plural. Power is simply the force needed to perform an action, so socially, people need to have goals first. My main area of power I suppose would be knowledge. The more a system fits into the universe at large, the more functional it is, and the longer it will last.

@tachin1

These are some of the constraints I believe exist when talking about organizing societies on a macro level. My impression is that you don’t consider that forming a society is more than just an agreement between the people that wish to participate, there needs to be a way to enforce those agreements (now power dynamics come in to play) and that there are constraints on what is possible (hence politics)

I think that this might bother people because they are accustomed to assuming that “society” is one monolithic totality. Why people try to game a system might be because it is not their system, they are captive to it. With voluntary associations, much of that can be obviated by choosing to associate with those who use the compatible protocols or methodologies. When agreement isn’t coerced, it takes minimal power to achieve compliance.

@tachin1

There must be better ways to organize than what we have, but the ideas that will change the world for the better need to be global

I am not sure that the evidence I see backs this up. Ecologically, humans and the world at large did better with much smaller groups. Any totalitarian system is going to need to meet the disparate goals of billions of people, or take them along for the ride as captives. Neither sound very realistic to me.

@tachin1

anything possible within today’s society by simply opting out is a regression, and only possible by maintaining things as they are.

Opting out of what? People confront me with talk of opting/dropping out constantly, despite my constant explanations that that is not what I am doing, nor interested in. I start from first principles, and try helping people to devise structures which address their personal and social goals. Not that there is much interest! But as a formalist, I look for some rigour when people discuss societies, that people are willing to do the hands-on work of making and breaking social structures as needed, instead of assuming that others will do it. Many people have vague social concerns, but most seem horrified at the idea that they have any real personal responsibility for how things are. I wish I knew how to be more encouraging to people.

[tachin1]

@popobawa4u

I am not sure that the evidence I see backs this up. Ecologically, humans and the world at large did better with much smaller groups.

Humans did what they could with what they had. Populations are only going to grow, there’s no way to go back to small scale societies.
In this sense, organizing small is tantamount to turning away from humanity and opting out, which is part of the reason I say solutions need to be global.

But as a formalist, I look for some rigour when people discuss societies,

Then please, discuss with rigour if you wish but I’m not looking for a rebuttal, I’m looking for conversation. I prefer you talk about your ideas so we can discuss them instead of extending this preamble and not getting anywhere.
Please define your terms

[anon61221983]

@nemomeno

How would you plan to get (less bright|risk-averse|conservative|lazy) people on board with the massive complexities of open-ended consensual rule based systems of interaction?

I think this explains quite a bit about the problems we have as a society, overall. >_<