JCC Should Private Property Be Allowed?

"Natural" impulses aren't necessarily neutral. Pedophiles feel the way they do "naturally." I "naturally" want to kill stupid people.

 

If there's some massive social awakening within the next 500 years, that's one thing.

But should Private Property be allowed? Yes. The way the question is framed, it makes it sound like "no" would mean use of force should be applied... not people voluntarily renouncing ownership.

 

So what's your basis for saying that greed is wrong? What about greed is morally wrong? Or selfishness, for that matter?

 

Yeah, but it's an Oliver Stone movie, so all labels are topsy turvy.

 

It depends on your orientation towards the worth of the individual and his responsibility towards society as a whole vs his responsibility towards himself. In a situation where scarcity is a reality, it's easy to see where greed, particularly unfettered greed, is a morally dubious proposition at best, if you hold that a society should work for and ensure a general standard of living and fair distribution of resources to it's people.

 

DarthLowBudget What about situations where greed results in alleviating instead of exacerbating scarcity? How do we determine when greed is excessive or unfettered? Everyone is going to have at least a slightly different criteria for what is too greedy or what is fair. "Greedy" and "fair" are highly subjective terms that are just as loaded as terms like "human nature."

 

Yes, I agree, this is nothing like a clear issue, and the terms involved are highly loaded and subjective. There's the whole issue of enlightened self interest to account for, and then there's the fact that many of these definitions hinge on your philosophical position. It's kind of a rat's nest.

 

I'm curious, Vivec: how much (just generally speaking; I'm not trying to nail you down on some specific measurement or anything) of selfishness do you think is attributable to our genetics, if any?

 

I have absolutely no idea, Blithe. Dammit, I'm a physicist, not a geneticist! But I don't think the answer matters in the end. The concept of "human nature" is vague and ill-defined that I don't think it even plays into the topic here.

 

Yeah I know, but what I'm getting at is that if a decent amount of selfishness comes from our evolution and therefore is in the genes then it becomes that much more problematic and impractical to simply condition people out of that kind of behavior. . . right? If there is a significant genetic factor, then one has to re-evaluate a good portion of their framework, at least I would think. I'm not even really saying that selfishness is attributable to genetics, but if it is, it certainly makes things even trickier.

 

Oh, I'd disagree with that. Our deeply held beliefs about "human nature" often informs our attitudes toward the appropriate relationship between the individual and government. Relating this directly to the larger discussion, sit in any economics class and listen to the reactions of the students to The Tragedy of the Commons. You'll find that some will take that as proof that private ownership is necessary to make any society work while others will draw the exact opposite conclusion. It's damned fascinating, really.

As for the larger question, I admit to not having bothered to read the entire thread so this may have already been said. But the necessity of private property is not just some notion that western civilization came up with on a whim. We decided that people are more likely to produce good and services that society needs only if they perceive a direct benefit from their labor. That tends only to work if the property is owned.

 

I definitely get what you are saying. But isn't your desire for a better society as a whole just another form of selfishness/greed? I mean, politically I'm a socialist. I'm all for sharing and stuff. But I'm a socialist because I want the best society for myself and for those I love.