Autonomous Truck Completes driverless run

[Riedquat]

Private ownership is fundamentally at odds with promoting liberty of the citizens because the vast majority of citizens have no private property. And over time it snowballs so that private property ends up in fewer and fewer hands. Now we're getting to the point where due to everything going digital and the increasing difficulty of buying a home that the amount of personal property people have is going down.

Private ownership is the cornerstone of the liberty of citizens - it's yours, you can't be driven away from it at the whim of someone else. Anything that aims to concentrate the ability to control who has what over others thus works against that, and that's both too much of both left and right - the left that treats everyone as minions of the state, the right that treats everyone as minions of the rich - and ever-more developments to render more and more individuals useless - digitisation and automation have their uses but increasingly look to be heading towards doing far more harm than good.

[Draco Dracul]

Private ownership is fundamentally at odds with promoting liberty of the citizens because the vast majority of citizens have no private property. And over time it snowballs so that private property ends up in fewer and fewer hands. Now we're getting to the point where due to everything going digital and the increasing difficulty of buying a home that the amount of personal property people have is going down.

Private ownership is the cornerstone of the liberty of citizens - it's yours, you can't be driven away from it at the whim of someone else. Anything that aims to concentrate the ability to control who has what over others thus works against that, and that's both too much of both left and right - the left that treats everyone as minions of the state, the right that treats everyone as minions of the rich - and ever-more developments to render more and more individuals useless - digitisation and automation have their uses but increasingly look to be heading towards doing far more harm than good.

A)Private property serves to concentrate control in the hands of the few and historically the state at the behest of the rich has over ridden the property rights of the poor and minorities.
B) A significant portion of the left are anarchists, who absolutely despise the state because it serves to protect the private property rights of the rich over the well being of the poor.
C) Private property rights are what the rich use to treat people as minions. If private property was abolished in favor of communal ownership automation would actually happen faster than it is because everyone would benefit from it.

[Madner Kami]

notsureifserious.jpg

[Draco Dracul]

notsureifserious.jpg

I'm an ancom so yes I'm serious.

[Madner Kami]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

[Draco Dracul]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

Historically capitalists have treated stuff that is theirs far worse than people have treated stuff that was held in common.

[Madner Kami]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

Historically capitalists have treated stuff that is theirs far worse than people have treated stuff that was held in common.

I have the nagging feeling that this is informed by your point of view, rather than reflecting an accurate picture of reality and making observations about it. Give me an example of what you just said.

I'll start with some of my own:

Littering of streets. It's reasonable to argue that a public street is the property of everyone, at the very least of all tax-payers, right? How many people do you know, who actually clean public streets? My bet is on there being a hell of a lot more people littering the streets, than there are people who clean them, despite everyone "owning" (at least nominally through taxes) an equal share of said property.

Conversely, does a capitalist who runs down a company in order to extract the most profit from it, just to sell it shortly before to goes bankrupt actually damage his property? I'd argue: No. His idea wasn't owning the company, his idea was making money from the company and thus he did not atually hurt his property. He merely used a replaceable and cheap tool, for lack of a better metaphor. He used that company like you use your car. You buy it, invest enough in it to keep it running for your benefit and you'll sell it when it stops being profitable to use for you, e.g. because replacing the engine costs more than just getting a new car.

[Nealithi]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

Historically capitalists have treated stuff that is theirs far worse than people have treated stuff that was held in common.

I am fairly certain I disagree here. People in a general sense have been showing a widespread attitude of "It's not mine." for the comment on not caring for items. Businesses are not failing to care for their product because they do not care about their property. They fail to care because they employ people that do not care about another's property. I have seen new employees brought in, sent to do a task in a company vehicle. And the vehicle came back damaged. Excuse? "What do you care, it isn't yours."
That is not the company, and thus capitalists, not caring. It is common people not caring.

[Draco Dracul]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

Historically capitalists have treated stuff that is theirs far worse than people have treated stuff that was held in common.

I have the nagging feeling that this is informed by your point of view, rather than reflecting an accurate picture of reality and making observations about it. Give me an example of what you just said.

I'll start with some of my own:

Littering of streets. It's reasonable to argue that a public street is the property of everyone, at the very least of all tax-payers, right? How many people do you know, who actually clean public streets? My bet is on there being a hell of a lot more people littering the streets, than there are people who clean them, despite everyone "owning" (at least nominally through taxes) an equal share of said property.

The amount of litter in the streets is largely the result of poor public policy. We actually know how frequently trash cans should be placed to avoid litter, but most cities are well short of that distance in the street.

Conversely, does a capitalist who runs down a company in order to extract the most profit from it, just to sell it shortly before to goes bankrupt actually damage his property? I'd argue: No. His idea wasn't owning the company, his idea was making money from the company and thus he did not atually hurt his property. He merely used a replaceable and cheap tool, for lack of a better metaphor. He used that company like you use your car. You buy it, invest enough in it to keep it running for your benefit and you'll sell it when it stops being profitable to use for you, e.g. because replacing the engine costs more than just getting a new car.

I mean this is basically saying that it's perfectly okay to do selfish and harmful things as long as it benefits you personally. A company isn't just numbers on a ledger, it's people's livelihoods. In running down a company for quick profit as you describe, they no only damage the property for the next owner, but also hurt people and potentially destroy entire communities.

You're describing exactly the destructive and extractive capitalist mindset that aims to kill each and every one of us, but pretending it doesn't count.

Also the car analogy is a terrible one because with the exception of a few high demand vintage automobiles cars are always depreciate in value. Additionally the process you're describing is the equivalent of stuffing your mechanic and then selling someone a lemon.

[Draco Dracul]

So someone who has no experience with people or how people treat stuff that isn't theirs then, gotcha.

Historically capitalists have treated stuff that is theirs far worse than people have treated stuff that was held in common.

I am fairly certain I disagree here. People in a general sense have been showing a widespread attitude of "It's not mine." for the comment on not caring for items. Businesses are not failing to care for their product because they do not care about their property. They fail to care because they employ people that do not care about another's property. I have seen new employees brought in, sent to do a task in a company vehicle. And the vehicle came back damaged. Excuse? "What do you care, it isn't yours."
That is not the company, and thus capitalists, not caring. It is common people not caring.

The case I'm using is the treatment of the common lands which was for centuries accessible for use by all, but was fenced off by proto-capitalists to prevent the "tragedy of the commons". This land which had been fine in the hands of the people collectively for centuries was rendered barren through overwork by its private owners in mere decades.

I also think the abuse of company property is a particularly bad example because it is not only not held in common, but is owned by the people actively exploiting you.