Autonomous Truck Completes driverless run

[TGLS]

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.

That seems kind of doubtful given the steady rate crop yields grew in the era during and after the inclosure acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... p_rotation

[Riedquat]

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.

You're looking at the extreme case on one side there and conveniently ignoring the other. In both extremes the average person gets thrown around from side to side with few rights, his or her home being someone else's to order them out of if it's convenient, and generally screw them over. All you're doing in either case is concentrating more power in the hands of the few.

The rich can abuse private property rights. A strong left-wing government can abuse communal property rights (they end up being "government property rights"). In either case it's all very nice for a small number of people thank you very much, everyone else be damned. Everyone having their own bit that's their's, that's necessary to reduce exploitation or abandonment.

What benefit would there be from automation in a left-wing communal society? The state would have less need of the people and less incentive to do anything for them. Just as in the right-wing one the rich have less need for them now that they can even further monopolise. Automation can be a useful tool but it's also something that, like many tools, can and will be used heavily by those at the top, whoever they are, to wash their hands of dependence on anyone else. Less reliance on large numbers of people is dangerous for large numbers of people.

[Riedquat]

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.

It's the result of lazy buggers who can't be bothered to carry that crisp packet or empty can in their pocket until they've got somewhere to put it and who couldn't care less about litter in the street that's not their's. There's never any need to leave litter (no bins if I go for a walk in the hills, and funnily enough, I don't just chuck my rubbish on to the ground), doing so says more about the person leaving it than anything else.

[Riedquat]

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.

Where?

Sometimes we've got a problem with technology there too - intensive farming methods (which seem to be necessary to feed an execssively large population) are pretty destructive. But that's nothing really to do with this thread.

[Draco Dracul]

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.

You're looking at the extreme case on one side there and conveniently ignoring the other. In both extremes the average person gets thrown around from side to side with few rights, his or her home being someone else's to order them out of if it's convenient, and generally screw them over. All you're doing in either case is concentrating more power in the hands of the few.

The rich can abuse private property rights. A strong left-wing government can abuse communal property rights (they end up being "government property rights"). In either case it's all very nice for a small number of people thank you very much, everyone else be damned. Everyone having their own bit that's their's, that's necessary to reduce exploitation or abandonment.

Maybe it was not clear in the post you're responding to, but I'm an anarcho communist. I think all governance should be in the form of direct democracy. The "government" in this case is not a small group of people, elected or otherwise, but the collective consent of the governed.

Everyone having thier own bit that's theirs is the opposite of how the shift to private property has actually played out. It's how 400 people wound up with more to thier names than half the world's population. And historically the protection of private property has been used to prevent land reform, such as when the US overthrew the Guatemalan government at the behest of United Fruit or who even after apartheid ended in South Africa the majority of land is owned by the white settlers.

And again I want to emphasize from my perspective the vast, vast majority of people do not have a shread of private property and instead sell thier time to the people that do.

What benefit would there be from automation in a left-wing communal society? The state would have less need of the people and less incentive to do anything for them. Just as in the right-wing one the rich have less need for them now that they can even further monopolise. Automation can be a useful tool but it's also something that, like many tools, can and will be used heavily by those at the top, whoever they are, to wash their hands of dependence on anyone else. Less reliance on large numbers of people is dangerous for large numbers of people.

In a direct democratic society with communal ownership less reliance on large numbers of people means more free time for those people. If productivity per person doubles there is no reason to not just have every person work half as much. Or if more luxuries are wanted, you can scale back the work time less to give people more goods.

A just society need not fear idle hands.

[Draco Dracul]

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.

It's the result of lazy buggers who can't be bothered to carry that crisp packet or empty can in their pocket until they've got somewhere to put it and who couldn't care less about litter in the street that's not their's. There's never any need to leave litter (no bins if I go for a walk in the hills, and funnily enough, I don't just chuck my rubbish on to the ground), doing so says more about the person leaving it than anything else.

Disneyland belongs to a guest even less than any given city belongs to its inhabitants, but it has very little problem with litter. Do you know why that is? Because back in the fifties Walt Disney had people study how far people would be willing to go for a trash can and then made sure there wasn't a spot in the park where you were father than that from a trash can.

[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.

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.

Hmm, okay I can buy that national parks, nature reserves and the like have been shafted for the sake of shafting them. Of course the question comes in as why? And please don't just say capitalism = evil.
I was here when the governor put the Pine Barrens in the ballot as do we use it or conserve it. And when the vote came to conserve it. She redefined conservation as exploitation by her contractor friends.
On the flipside with different laws in place contractors had to try redoing exist commercial area instead of leaving strip malls abandoned to go build another one ad infinitum. The rebuilt area near me is now thriving and we have less useless expansion for its own sake. Which has oddly seen the return of wild turkeys in the area. . .

On a previous point about trash cans. Going to point out there is video evidence that people in New York right next to a trash can are barely bothered to throw in the direction of the can. So not so much a lack of receptacles as still a lack of respect.

[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.

Hmm, okay I can buy that national parks, nature reserves and the like have been shafted for the sake of shafting them. Of course the question comes in as why? And please don't just say capitalism = evil.

It's because it's more profitable in the short term and a faster turn around means the profits can be used for more investments sooner. If you can make 2.5 million in a year, but exhaust the resource or make 5 million in 10 years and have the resource still usable, most investors would choose the former.

[TGLS]

I was here when the governor put the Pine Barrens in the ballot as do we use it or conserve it. And when the vote came to conserve it. She redefined conservation as exploitation by her contractor friends.

I didn't know New Jersey had a woman governor.

[Nealithi]

I was here when the governor put the Pine Barrens in the ballot as do we use it or conserve it. And when the vote came to conserve it. She redefined conservation as exploitation by her contractor friends.

I didn't know New Jersey had a woman governor.

Christie Todd Whitman. This was back in the 90's. She did the Pine Barrens thing. She tried to get any car over two years old failed for emissions. Not because she cared about the environment. But because she thought everyone in the state should be driving new cars.