[ExI] property

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sat Apr 19 23:34:02 UTC 2008


Bryan writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> > Instead, perhaps it would be possible to modify our brains so
>> > that the concept of ownership can be, in some way, hacked.
>>
>> Interesting idea [but] we have to explain why *ownership* evolved
>> (i.e. what advantages nature found to the idea). Second, we have
>> to item-by-item criticize the operation of the concept, i.e. how it's
>> working now and its drawbacks...
> 
> As I mentioned previously, the alternative is understanding that it is 
> physically possible to lose accessibility to something, plus planning 
> for this, which would do wonders for many of us.

Agreed. Also, this thread perhaps continues a discussion where
*future* conditions and situations are being considered. Anyway,
by writing this sentence, it helps me remember we are talking
about both *now* and in the far *future*.

> Although it is always useful to be able to abstract those thoughts
> away and have other processes dealing with those issues while
> we focus on other stuff.

I sense that it will become very important---if it's not already---to
reaffirm that "we" can be in two places at once. In other words,
we need not cease identifying with those processes which aren't
our main focus.

> But I am pretty sure even in the case where we just assume that the Good 
> Guys will fight for us to have our property, we are abstracting it away 
> too, right?

Sorry, I don't understand your usage of "abstracting away". It would
help for the sake of clarity, especially in consecutive sentences to
amplify or find synonyms or alternate phrasing.

> In the case of the Good Guys it's abstracting it away to wetware,
> with lots of assumptions about their reaction and hoping that they
> will opt to react, meanwhile there are other more, ah, solid-state 
> solutions that offer alternatives. Like backing up your data instead
> of fighting off evildoers with a stick in front of your UPS. 

In our social history going back at least as far as our break with
the chimps 5M years ago, the "good guys" very often do respond.
It's always been in the interest of the ruling parties to maintain order. 

But I'm including more dire threats than that of just my data (though
in the far future it can be said that I'm nothing else but). If there is
a deliberate process that is eliminating me over larger and larger
regions of space, mere backups and fleeing are neither advisable
nor effective. (The police must be called ;-) or my neighbors at least.)

> In the case of the [vicious, dangerous, or badly misbehaving] dog
> the question is 'who gets to modify the behavior and/or DNA 
> of this dog?' and questions like 'who is going to fix this mess' are 
> better transformed into 'who wants to help this mess?' (instead of 
> assigning blame, taking action).

That's very constructive of you. But we have found it necessary
in all social societies I know of to have behaviors one might
call "revenge", "intimidation", and "deterrent". Your "taking action"
is and *has* to often include sanctions against the actor. 

>> 4. [Property] enables price signals to work---that wholly
>>     underappreciated mechanism by which markets allocate
>>     goods. If something isn't owned, then even if miraculously
>>     (1), (2), and (3) did not apply, motivation to for its transport
>>     in space where it would be more useful is lacking
> 
> Price signals in post-scarcity? Hrm.

Oh yes!  The whole enterprise of "agorics computing" is based on it.
http://www.agorics.com/Library/agoricpapers.html .  Besides,
frankly, I cannot imagine a scenario (though I've just spent
a few seconds on it) where price signals would not benefit the
distribution of scarce resources. "Post scarcity" means only IMO
lots of free basics, the way that air is free right now. In the future,
there will always be limits on available compute power, or at 
least *nearby* available compute resources. If my neighbor
(both literally and in the far future sense of a relatively nearby
ongoing computation that I know of) is using some resources
for some benefit, it may happen that I would have greater
benefit of those same resources.  If so, I will simply out-bid him
if I can, or if it's something he owns, buy it from him at a mutually
wealth-creating price.

>> you mention:  the cases of children being taken from their mothers.
> 
> ...I am pointing out the flaws with the idea of assuming 'ownership'
> is going to hold or do anything for you ...

What about the *reality* of ownership, then? Namely, can't
we live under a system of laws that actually are enforced
(either now or in the future)?

>> To me, to a far greater extent than other people, children *belong*
>> to their parents. But even so, what if the parents decide to go their
>> separate ways? What exactly are you proposing?
> 
> I am proposing that some mothers think of their children as property, 
> and that when people take children away, it is clear that an outside 
> group overwrote the "property" concept in the socio-memespace, so how 
> useful was it, eh? The child is gone- instead of relying on a Shield of 
> Ownership, maybe mom should have taken lil' Jimmy and ran away?

Contrast these alternatives:

(i) taking Jimmy and fleeing
(ii) putting out a contract on the dad
(iii) barricading access to Jimmy

Sounds like you would have a problem with (ii) unless I miss my
guess. Why?  And if you refer to *enforced* laws, then I ask
why not *enforce* property rights? (We are now into an area
where future scenarios don't come easily to mind, FWIW.)

>> Isn't it the case that my claim "they stole my property!" can
>> effectively mobilize the good guys to stop those outsiders?
> 
> You ask "isn't it?" - the answer seems to be no. Ideally, hell yeah.

That's untrue throughout most of the world, now and in the
past. (Yes, there were many lawless examples, but in most
societies, like I was saying, the ruling groups have a vested
interest in guaranteeing help against thieves.) So right now,
if you call the police and can identify some particular person
and say "he/they stole my property" the police will be interested.
Without such known interest, by the way, criminals would be
much bolder.

You don't want to have to flee every time your roommate or
neighbor starts making threats.

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list