Saturday, July 15
The Dog and the Horse
ECONOMICS
Before I continue, I must admit, I've not read enough of the big theory books about socialism, so what I'm going to say may be something others have already thouth of and improved upon - or even rejected. I made a post a while ago about private property, and I want to explore that theme a bit more. It sounds like a bit of a pretentious question to ask "What is property?" - while the answer "Theft." seems facetious to say the least. But the answer isn't as straightforward as it seems. What do we mean when we say that we own something?
My answer would be that we mean two things. We mean that first, we have the right to derive benefit from what we own. If I own a teapot, I can use that teapot to make a cup of tea. That's simple enough. But there's more. If I own a teapot, I have the right to deny anyone else from deriving benefit from that teapot. I'll call these two functions utility (the ability to use) and power (the ability to control usage).
But we sometimes need the second function to make the first meaningful. It's no good to me if I have the utility of a jam sandwich if I haven't the power to stop someone else taking it and eating it first. Sandwiches are consumables - since they are destroyed on use, they are objects with inherently limited utility. On the other hand, you can use a teapot many times: a teapot isn't destroyed when you use it, so there is no need for me to stop other people using a teapot. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm talking about a slightly idealised teapot which doesn't accumulate tanin and so forth, but these things are negligible for present purposes).
But that's not all - there are some things, such as robotic welding equipment that, as individuals, we have no utility for. All we gain from owning a robotic welding tool is the ability to sell it (and therefore not own it) or to lend it (i.e. give the utility of it to another). This 'other', unless a sub-letter themselves, is not going to be a human being, but another entity, namely a company of some description. Under the present system, the fact that we can restrict the use of the welding equipment means we can charge rent for it, if there's a market.
Now, I'm sure you'll notice that the last paragraph just sounds a little bizarre. And while that's how ownership works in our world, it seems counter-intuitive that we should be able to deny others services we ourselves can have no use for and lose nothing in our permission. For this to be an indisputable right is even further from common sense.
Information is the most blatant example of them all. If I own a copyright or a patent (note: you don't have to be the original author or inventor to do so), I have power over that information. I can restrict the use of that information, or block it off completely. My own utility of the information, however, is left entirely intact whether or not I permit others to use it. It's not like a teapot, which can be used at a capacity of one potful at a time, and therefore limits the number of people who use it concurrently to a small group. If I wrote a manual on, I don't know, grammar, then I can refer to it at any time, and so can any number of other people - simultaneously, and at no cost except for that of the medium through which it is transferred and displayed. And yet, if I acquire the patenting rights to a cure for cancer from a researcher, then under the present system, I can stick two fingers up at the world and legally prohibit anyone from curing people - even though it costs me nothing to let them. This is not the defensive use of power as used to protect the right to enjoy the jam snadwich, this is a spiteful, aggressive abuse of power to the detriment of others, the like of which we have no rights, despite what present society would have us believe.
That's not a right, that's a repugnance. I say socialism mean getting back to what we really mean by ownership: the ability to use and enjoy the product of our labour, and the power simply to defend that right.
ECONOMICS
Before I continue, I must admit, I've not read enough of the big theory books about socialism, so what I'm going to say may be something others have already thouth of and improved upon - or even rejected. I made a post a while ago about private property, and I want to explore that theme a bit more. It sounds like a bit of a pretentious question to ask "What is property?" - while the answer "Theft." seems facetious to say the least. But the answer isn't as straightforward as it seems. What do we mean when we say that we own something?
My answer would be that we mean two things. We mean that first, we have the right to derive benefit from what we own. If I own a teapot, I can use that teapot to make a cup of tea. That's simple enough. But there's more. If I own a teapot, I have the right to deny anyone else from deriving benefit from that teapot. I'll call these two functions utility (the ability to use) and power (the ability to control usage).
But we sometimes need the second function to make the first meaningful. It's no good to me if I have the utility of a jam sandwich if I haven't the power to stop someone else taking it and eating it first. Sandwiches are consumables - since they are destroyed on use, they are objects with inherently limited utility. On the other hand, you can use a teapot many times: a teapot isn't destroyed when you use it, so there is no need for me to stop other people using a teapot. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm talking about a slightly idealised teapot which doesn't accumulate tanin and so forth, but these things are negligible for present purposes).
But that's not all - there are some things, such as robotic welding equipment that, as individuals, we have no utility for. All we gain from owning a robotic welding tool is the ability to sell it (and therefore not own it) or to lend it (i.e. give the utility of it to another). This 'other', unless a sub-letter themselves, is not going to be a human being, but another entity, namely a company of some description. Under the present system, the fact that we can restrict the use of the welding equipment means we can charge rent for it, if there's a market.
Now, I'm sure you'll notice that the last paragraph just sounds a little bizarre. And while that's how ownership works in our world, it seems counter-intuitive that we should be able to deny others services we ourselves can have no use for and lose nothing in our permission. For this to be an indisputable right is even further from common sense.
Information is the most blatant example of them all. If I own a copyright or a patent (note: you don't have to be the original author or inventor to do so), I have power over that information. I can restrict the use of that information, or block it off completely. My own utility of the information, however, is left entirely intact whether or not I permit others to use it. It's not like a teapot, which can be used at a capacity of one potful at a time, and therefore limits the number of people who use it concurrently to a small group. If I wrote a manual on, I don't know, grammar, then I can refer to it at any time, and so can any number of other people - simultaneously, and at no cost except for that of the medium through which it is transferred and displayed. And yet, if I acquire the patenting rights to a cure for cancer from a researcher, then under the present system, I can stick two fingers up at the world and legally prohibit anyone from curing people - even though it costs me nothing to let them. This is not the defensive use of power as used to protect the right to enjoy the jam snadwich, this is a spiteful, aggressive abuse of power to the detriment of others, the like of which we have no rights, despite what present society would have us believe.
That's not a right, that's a repugnance. I say socialism mean getting back to what we really mean by ownership: the ability to use and enjoy the product of our labour, and the power simply to defend that right.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 16:52 
