252: on Poprerty...a real conclusion

One thing is clear. The only place where private property in the most strict sense of the word exists, is in Second Life. Whatever you posses there, you can do with it as you like, no matter what consequences it might have for others.

They won't sue you, they can't hurt you. They may protest, but you just need to shrug your shoulders and continue your Virtual Life as if nothing has happens. You just abandoned some land, for instance. So, whatever……

This means, that we need a different interpretation of the concept of private property and may conclude that the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," can not be uphold.

Due to the industrial revolution the concept of property was a hot issue in the 19th century. Even to such and extend that French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.(1840) formulated the famous statement: "La propriété, c'est le vol!" [Property is theft!]

But as Karl Marx already pointed out, the statement is self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property"

However, the idea wasn't new as Rousseau once wrote: ""The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.

From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:

Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Discourse on Inequality ,1754)

To end this line of thinking with a joke: "Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft"

The two major justifications given for original property are effort and scarcity. The effort principle goes back yo John Locke and his idea of mixing your labor with an object. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it.


Any society with an interest in avoiding conflict needs a system of rules. And from this point of view David Hume (1763) concluded that there are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.

This might lead to the conclusion that there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality and laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.

Thus property appears to be maybe the most sensitive political subject ever. And as history will show, it has given birth to quite opposite political systems based on how property is defined by law.

The collapse of socialist systems in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1989 has been regarded as the natural justification of the existence of property and a justification of private property as well.

This may have lead to regard it as justified to privately accumulate as much property as possible as a personal goal, like the big banks have done since the 80s, which has resulted in the financial crisis we have to face these days.

The next crisis has already announced itself, when you look at countries like Greece where a small group has accumulated lots of property at the expense of a whole country and its economy, which even endangers the whole euro zone.

It may show that despite all political theories and laws we still have not found the right way to deal with property in such a sense that it is beneficial to all of society instead of beneficial for just a small group.

I guess we are still at the beginning of defining the concept of property in such a way that is will lead to a just global society, where it is the goal of political theory to achieve a just and fair distribution of property, or in other words a just access to the resources of this earth for everyone.


The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: So much on property..
[13:25] CONNIE Eichel: ty :)
[13:25] Daruma Boa: *•.¸('*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´)¸
[13:25] Daruma Boa: .•*♥¨`•APPLAUSE!!!°•´¨` ♥.
[13:25] Daruma Boa: ¸.•*(¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸)`*•.¸
[13:25] Daruma Boa: Hey!
[13:25] herman Bergson: thank you Daruma
[13:25] oola Neruda: what about griefers... how they are using their property
[13:26] herman Bergson: Nothing special about them...
[13:26] Zinzi Serevi: what property?
[13:26] Zinzi's translator: what property?
[13:26] herman Bergson: IN RL terms they would be called criminals and put behind bars
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: I agree that we still just at the beginning of defining property in a way that will produce a just society
[13:27] herman Bergson: Here the get a death sentence....BANNED for ever
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: In nature, "property" seems, in some species, equal to "territory."
[13:27] herman Bergson: YeS Bruce..
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: interesting
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: Does that correlate to "use of resources"?
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: so...a natural analog for human notions of property
[13:28] herman Bergson: The prey captured is defended against others too..a property effect
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce,..but in nature no lion kills 10 zebras...just one to have food
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: Excellent point.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Humans would even kill 100 zebras..to have dead zebras
[13:29] Zinzi Serevi: a fox kills 10 chickens and eats one
[13:29] Zinzi's translator: a fox kills 10 chickens and one eats
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: or millions of buffalo
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: domesticated chickens... than is.
[13:29] herman Bergson: true Zinzi...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Repose
[13:30] herman Bergson: But Zoinzi I think there is a reasonable explanation for that behavior...
[13:30] Bruce Mowbray: What would a "just" use of resources entail, then?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Bruce there you hit the central nerve...
[13:31] herman Bergson: if you assume that we as organisms on this earth just are here...where does the property idea come from?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Nobody owns anything or everybody owns everything...
[13:32] herman Bergson: so just means that we all have to share the resources to live a comfortable live
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I think it has to do with being "close" to ourselves physically.
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think it has to do with the question...why should a human being get a bonus of 10 million dollars for his work?
[13:33] Bruce Mowbray: What is the "just" use of resources meant that no one could "own" more than whatever was within twenty feet of himself?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Could that money not be spent in a more social way?
[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: yes i agree
[13:33] Zinzi's translator: yes i agree
[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: Excuse me proff...an emergency to deal with
[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Bruce that was in 1763 John Locke's idea too
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: Oh --- so MONEY is property now?
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: problem with capitalism is that it has no moral core
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and life is lived on a moral axis
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Repose...just the idea of property..
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Bruce...money is property
[13:34] oola Neruda: the idea of communal "property" is not always working... in malawi, feb. is "starvation month"... when it comes... everyone who has food is expected to share
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: capitalism and its notio0ns of property rights are not finally true to what we are
[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: It seems to me that the "just" use of resources would have to involve respect for the land, etc. from which those resources came and to which they will return.
[13:35] oola Neruda: there is no incentive to save food ahead because when the time comes you have to share it... so you eat it while you can
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes oola...human beings are so primitive and selfish by nature it seems
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: We still havent learnt to share
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: We share "common property" all the time.
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:36] herman Bergson: This earth produces enough food for all inhabitants...yet we see starvation...while nobody owns this earth
[13:37] herman Bergson: We still are a primitive species..despite of all philosophy and science
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: just what i was thinking just now ㋡
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: we have a "noble obligation" to share....?
[13:38] Zinzi Serevi: just survival of the fittest
[13:38] Zinzi's translator: just survival of the fittest
[13:38] herman Bergson: Dont despare...we made progress through the centuries
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, we do
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: I agree with Repose on that.
[13:38] herman Bergson: Not anymore Zinzi...
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: and I agree with Bruce ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: now it is survival of the richest ^_^
[13:38] oola Neruda: perhaps this is the root of things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" etc
[13:39] Daruma Boa: true zinzi
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: do unto others are you would have them. . .
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: as
[13:39] Daruma Boa: yesherman sadly true
[13:39] oola Neruda: :-)
[13:40] Zinzi Serevi: greed
[13:40] Zinzi's translator: Greed
[13:40] herman Bergson: We are taliking about 2000 years of philosophy
[13:40] herman Bergson: Homo sapiens for 30.000 years..
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Is one solution to expland our concept of "common" property and to reduce our concept of "private" property?
[13:40] herman Bergson: the universe for billions of years....
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: expand
[13:40] herman Bergson: we are just a flash of light..
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: a "flash of light" understanding does not feed hungry or house homeless...
[13:41] herman Bergson: we should come back to earth in 2000 years and see if the homo sapiens is stal around
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: don't hold your breath
[13:41] oola Neruda: nods
[13:42] herman Bergson: No Bruce..what I mean to say is that we makeprogress...but it is in a very slow pace
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: recent attempts to extend moral insights into modern economic organization (communism, socialism) have failed or underperformed
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: I undersand.
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: but that doesn't mean it can't be done
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: we learn from our mistakes
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Each of us ALREADY KNWOS what needs to be done.
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: regroup and go forward
[13:42] herman Bergson: YEs Repose..the big banks are abck to business as usual...
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: knows.
[13:42] herman Bergson: as if nothing has happened...
[13:43] herman Bergson: utter arrogance and th eknowledge that governments will keep them upright
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: we know what needs to be done.
[13:43] oola Neruda: some wheels...when put in motion... are not that easily undone... like what we do to the earth
[13:43] oola Neruda: like that oil spill for example... there are others
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, oola, seems like the problems are bigger at each turn of the wheel
[13:44] herman Bergson: ye sBruce ..we all know, but only a few do act upon it
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: yep.
[13:44] oola Neruda: money = property
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: credit = property??
[13:44] oola Neruda: wry smiles
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I made my point today on property...
[13:45] oola Neruda: oil spills and pollution etc... are like girefers
[13:45] herman Bergson: And I am thinking about my next step for the next lecture..
[13:45] oola Neruda: bankers are too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: ohhh...good analogy that
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:46] Daruma Boa: i agree
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: oh, what's that, Prof?
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...I am thinking..an other political philosopher or the idea that all men are equal...
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: and women....
[13:47] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Bruce
[13:47] Zinzi's translator: thanks Bruce
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:47] oola Neruda: yay bruce
[13:47] Josiane Llewellyn: :)
[13:47] herman Bergson: it is about sharing the resources of this earth...and we are all equally entitled to enjoy the use of these resoruces
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes, definitely not part of the discussion where i live ㋡
[13:48] Zinzi Serevi: i look forward to it
[13:48] Zinzi's translator: i look forward to it
[13:48] herman Bergson: in dutch ?men? is translated as meaning ?paople? Bruce.. ^_^
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: generic sexuality.... I like it!
[13:48] oola Neruda: chinese uses the same word for men and women
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: generic gender....
[13:49] herman Bergson: Then I love chinese oola ^_^
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: ewww
[13:49] oola Neruda: :-)
[13:49] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:49] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:49] herman Bergson: Welll...at least their cuisine.. ㋡
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Is gender not also a form of "property"?
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes Bruce..already John Locke said that we at least own our body..so also our gender defining parts
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: So, I "own" my gender -- not just "be" it.
[13:50] Daruma Boa: haha
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:51] herman Bergson: It IS your property Bruce...!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: to be is to own
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: You're damn right it is!
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: that's pretty metaphorical
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hand off!
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hands
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: Mine!
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...may I thank you all for your participation and good discussion
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: THANK you, Professor.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: thanks to you prof
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: thanks to you Prof
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:52] oola Neruda: nice, prof... :-)
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: as always i got food for thought again
[13:52] Daruma Boa: thank u
[13:52] herman Bergson: you are digesting my private property then Abraxas...my ideas
[13:52] Daruma Boa: so the next class is thursday?
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Daruma
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: I am i guess sa

LECTURE 2 5 0 .....!!! On Property

The key question that divides political philosophers returns to whether it is the group or the individual that should be the political unit of analysis.

And a second key question could be: what ought to be a person’s relationship to society, where it is a point of debate whether we see society as a collection of individuals or as a collection of groups.

We have reached a point in history where we are at the threshold of a completely new world, the industrialized world.

This will have a great impact on how society will be organized, on the increase of wealth, the growth of institutionalized education, mass production.

And although it has been an issue through the ages, now it is even more urgent with the increase of material prosperity to ask the question about property: who owns what and how is this justified?

This especially at the dawn of the controversy that will arise between liberalism and socialism and even maybe more relevant as we see a shift in European countries

from government owned institutions like hospitals, telecom, energy companies and railways to privatization of such important institutions.

This all based on the belief that the market (supply and demand economics) is the best mechanism to rule us.

So before we continue our journey along the path of the political philosophers, I first want to have a clear mind about the phenomenon we call PROPERTY.

Property is a general term for rules governing access to and control of land and other material resources. And where are rules there are rule makers, that is, there is dispute about rules.

When you think of property you may be inclined to think primarily of private property and even have a clear idea of what it means to say : this is MINE! However, is it that simple?

We may say that property can be defined by the rules,which control the individual's access to certain resources, like "it is free, take one" or " no you can't take that, John made it, so it is his."

There are three species of property arrangement: common property, collective property, and private property.

In a common property system, resources are governed by rules whose point is to make them available for use by all or any members of the society. Everybody is free to use the land and water, for instance. or use the park for recreation and sports.

If there are rules of restriction, they only aim at keeping the property free and open for everyone, forbidding anyone to put a fence around a piece of land for instance.

Collective property: the community as a whole determines how important resources are to be used. This is based on mechanisms of collective decision-making related to the social interest of the resources.

These decisions may be made by a group of wise men or it may be like in the former Soviet Union be a decision in the form of a long term plan how agricultural resources have to be produced and distributed.

Private property is an alternative to both collective and common property. In a private property system, property rules are organized around the idea that various contested resources are assigned to the decisional authority of particular individuals (or families or firms).

But how private is private? When something is my private property do I have absolute authority in the decision on what I can do with the property?

I own a car, but I am forbidden to drive through town at 200 miles per hour. I own a house, happens to be a building form the 16th century. I am forbidden to tear it down and replace it with a new house.

All of a sudden private doesn't seem to be private at all.At least, not in the sense that I am the only one who has the authority of decision-making about my "private' property.

I think we'll have a job to do to figure this all out……but because I privately own my own time, I am the only one who can make the decision to end this lecture now.


The Discussion

[13:21] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: But before you come with remark and questions I have done something to help you by updating the seats
[13:22] herman Bergson: Just press your shift key and then the LEFT arrow ㋡
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof, am sitting and my AO is still on ㋡
[13:22] Rosie Hexicola: ehm
[13:22] herman Bergson: Worked probably only for Rosie ^_^
[13:23] Rosie Hexicola: yeah, lovely
[13:23] herman Bergson: I put in the pose of the Thinker of Rodin in your seat ㋡
[13:23] herman Bergson: Anyway....
[13:24] Rosie Hexicola: it is the thinker pose, but I"m also IN the couch
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:24] herman Bergson: yes..deep thinker pose Rosie
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:25] herman Bergson: Ok...let's concentrate on the issue at hand now
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: it reminds me some business men who are not allowed to pollute the enviroment in their own countries just move the business in a developing country so that they could pollute the environment there and make benefits
[13:25] oola Neruda: yes
[13:25] oola Neruda: excellent point
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: This is exactly what is happening near my farm in Ohio.
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: A man from Holland has built an enormous pig farm -- a factory farm.
[13:26] oola Neruda: oh ick
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: He would never be permitted to do that in Holland.
[13:26] oola Neruda: those are horrid
[13:26] herman Bergson: Oh my..forbidden in Holland
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: really??
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: OK back to property.
[13:27] herman Bergson: YES....
[13:27] Sartre Placebo: all those evil dutch :)
[13:27] herman Bergson: they tried it here, but every one was against it
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:27] oola Neruda: residents on nearby lands here are against it also
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: We were against it too! But he had MONEY going for him.
[13:27] herman Bergson: So it didnt work..politics were against this horrible development
[13:28] oola Neruda: yes... the MONEY
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: also, as there is no law imposing on minimum wage, the firms set in these countries help them with the cheap labors too...
[13:28] herman Bergson: But the man OWNS the land ...calls it his property
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: but back to PROPERTY.
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: ok.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: So when he does so...what is the complaint?
[13:28] oola Neruda: is it fair to do things that affect other people's property
[13:29] herman Bergson: He is entitled to do as he wishes
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: should not be so but is
[13:29] Sartre Placebo: but it´s facinating how company´s like monsanto try even to gain property on entire pig races with new attributes in their meat
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: how about affirmative actions
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes ..the concept of property is very difficult to get at
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: that interfere, for example, how a landlord let his houses rent
[13:30] herman Bergson: Maybe there doesnt exist property at all...only sets of rules
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: property exists as a construct of those rules
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: but the right to property is never absolute
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Repose..the rules define the property
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a relation of three things
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: for example, that does not allow a firm owner to not recruit ppl from some race, and does not allow a landowner to exclude ppl from some races to rent his house
[13:31] Rosie Hexicola: I don't think there's anyone who doesn't have to obey any rules
[13:31] herman Bergson: The owner, the object and the third party
[13:31] herman Bergson: Indeed Rosie....in fact we seem to be rule driven completely
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:32] Rosie Hexicola: and the rules overrule the "this is mine, I'll do with it what i want" thing
[13:32] herman Bergson: However...the problem isnt that simple
[13:32] herman Bergson: there is a difference in possising a chair and for instance a company
[13:32] herman Bergson: I can say of both itmes they are my property
[13:33] herman Bergson: but that chair..I can do with it what I want...even burn it to ashes
[13:33] herman Bergson: no one will interfer
[13:33] herman Bergson: However, I cant do the same with my company
[13:33] Rosie Hexicola: unless at that point someone else is sitting in it
[13:33] herman Bergson: Will be roasted medium rare Rosie
[13:33] Rosie Hexicola: you'll harm the person sitting in your chair if you do that
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: owner, object, others -- nothing exists in isolation.
[13:34] herman Bergson: ok...I'll ask the person to stand up of course...it is MY chair!
[13:34] Rodney Handrick: what about the expression...possession is 9/10ths of the law
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: myth
[13:35] herman Bergson: What I wanted to say that even when you speak of private property..there is property and property...
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: the pig farmer owns the pigs, but not the air they pollute
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: but not*
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Repose there begins the problem
[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: nor the water under the ground that the pigs pollute.
[13:35] herman Bergson: The air is common property
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: and for ur own land within a community, can you just build anything, or does it need to abide by some community standard
[13:36] Rosie Hexicola: it depends on the community's rules
[13:36] herman Bergson: You have to obey certain building standards Kikik
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: WHICH "community"?
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: so, private property is not absolutely private
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Rosie..the rules are the core of this problem
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: He built the pig factory right OUTSIDE the city limits of the town that opposed him.
[13:37] Rosie Hexicola: in NL you can't just build a shed in your back yard, or add a room to your house... youneed special permission... I think in the US and Canada you have more liberties
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: not really
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: Legal - but not ethical...?
[13:37] herman Bergson: There are even philosophers who claim that private property is an empty term
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: you still need a permit in most places
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: from the town
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: no its the same in the US...in certain neighborhoods
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Hey Rodney! ㋡
[13:38] Rosie Hexicola: ok i was wrong then, lol
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: still.... common property and collective property...i cant distinguish them...it is confusing...
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: One can appeal to 'higher' authorities to get the permits.
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: hey rodney
[13:38] oola Neruda: thinking of pig farms... licences?
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: hi kiki
[13:38] Rosie Hexicola: what if I really like neon yellow and want to paint my house in it.. on the outside?
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lol that has happened
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: If a large corporation wants to take some land. . . it can appeal to high authorities than the town where they want the land.
[13:38] herman Bergson: Common property will say that property is as they call it a RES NULLIUS....a thing belonging to no one
[13:39] oola Neruda: purple...neon purple
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: higher authorities.
[13:39] herman Bergson: or in fact to every one without restriction
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: I think property rights are tempered by the needs of the moral communites we live in
[13:39] Rosie Hexicola: but who's the authority of the authorities?
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Good point, Rosie.
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i could destroy my iPhone and no one would care
[13:39] oola Neruda: that is why we must vote
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: It boils down to one thing...he who has the gold makes the rules
[13:39] herman Bergson: Collective property will say that the resources belong to a group...can be a society, a state
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: collective property belongs to a group?
[13:39] oola Neruda: even in congress
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i can't destroy my dog, though
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: oh.....thank you
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: even though he is my "property"
[13:40] herman Bergson: and the group decides on the access to the resources
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: 'collective' can also be a corportation?
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: corporation.
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Bruce I think that you can say that
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: Like Wal-Mart.
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...i think i understand it better now...thank you
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in the real sense of cooperation not a company
[13:41] herman Bergson: because the company is owned by an individual
[13:41] Rosie Hexicola: the place you live in has certain rules, federal laws etc., and those overrule the rights of owning a property unless explicitly stated otherwise in the laws about property
[13:41] herman Bergson: Farmers may organize in a cooperation..
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: In the US the corporation is seen as an individual
[13:41] herman Bergson: they can collectively own machines etc
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: That's right, Rod.
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Supreme Court has ruled it so.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well that kills the idea of a cooperation...people cooperating together
[13:42] Rosie Hexicola: so do we or do we not really own?
[13:43] herman Bergson: For now I would say, as far as the rules allow us Rosie
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: The corporation is a collection of like minded people who create an entity
[13:44] herman Bergson: the other issue I mentioned is the focus: the individual or the group
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: to an end
[13:44] herman Bergson: We see Marx already appearing at the horizon
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmmm
[13:45] herman Bergson: And to add to this....
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: ownership is subjective...do we own the food we consume?
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i think some extremist libertarians neglect individuals, sometimes more than the socialists do , because
[13:45] Bruce Mowbray: Where is Adam Smith -- the invisible hand...?
[13:45] herman Bergson: It was Marx who predicted that capitalism would collapse because of its greed
[13:45] herman Bergson: On his way Bruce,,,
[13:46] herman Bergson: and he almost got it right, didnt he?
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol right now yes
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: Second Life seems to rely upon "emergence" for its "rules" regarding property, ethics, and group rules...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well, his system didnt work either
[13:46] Rodney Handrick: greed is still subjective
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: interesting, Bruce
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: because some extremist libertarians think that the smaller the gov, the better....and if the state does not help to protect individuals, other individuals could just deprive him/her of the rights just as easily
[13:47] herman Bergson: You mean they sail as the wind blows Bruce
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The rules come out of the experience of interaction -- not from the top coming down...
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: his system in practice turned out as alienating as he believed capitalism to be ㋡
[13:47] Rodney Handrick: true...someone must win and someone must lose
[13:47] herman Bergson: The problem with the SL strategy is that it looks like opportunism
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: It's actually Darwinian in a sense--- not of POWER and survival of the fitest - but of what WORKS in the SL experience.
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: well, it's a business ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Repose I would say that too
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: How many people would go to a pig factory sim in SL?
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: there is hardly violence in sl unless you are very careless...and sl is more decentralized
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: than some other online games
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: hehehe, Bruce
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: well there are fish and rabbits who knows
[13:49] herman Bergson: True Kiki
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: turtles
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: SL is FAR FAR more civilized than the state I live in.
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: o my goodness
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: physical state, I mean.
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: yes!
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: because they are like minded users here Bruce
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: so sl is a good example on how individuality is achieved
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Rodney...there is a common factor in all of us
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: also a good example of how COMMUNIUTY is achieved.
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: because in rl, when other residents could threat you and nobody protects, then you cant embrace what is claimed to be assigned to you
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, bruce
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: In theory, anyway, SL is entirely consentual...
[13:50] herman Bergson: But ONE major difference!!!
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: community as well as individulism
[13:50] herman Bergson: In fact there is NO FEAR in SL
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: yes. . .
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: newbies often feel fear, I think
[13:51] herman Bergson: No fear of life, no fear of disease ...you can play it but never be tortured
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: but not those who know sl
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: with Repose
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: I'm still noob here.
[13:51] herman Bergson: So this makes SL the wrong example for community building
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: ah but you can get disappointed
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: will this isn't a utopia
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: well
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe violence is a constant inevitable factor in rl, cant be neglected
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes you can Abraxas....the is the posibbility of emotional damage
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: yes, violence to the environment, too.
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yet, firendship is more available in sl than rl, i think
[13:52] herman Bergson: But it isnt life threatening
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: communities are built here
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: agreed, Repose.
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: violence comes from ignorance
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: agreed repose
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: or lose jobs
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: peace is achieve by violent deterrent, law, legislations, and morals make ppl abide by it otherwise, there is fear that they get jailed
[13:53] herman Bergson: And property in SL is NOT based on emerging rules
[13:53] herman Bergson: the simple laws of Copyright are applied here
[13:53] herman Bergson: So that defines our possesions in SL
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: the two comments as in a switched order
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: even most religions are violent, except for buddhism
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: true...however, the making of money has not entered the equation
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: so in rl violence is non neglectable
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: oh, but tell that to the Tamil Tigers ㋡
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:55] herman Bergson: So I think that a comparision between SL and RL is a bit off the mark
[13:55] herman Bergson: Doesnt make much sense
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: I agree
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: were it not for violent deterrent, maybe countries are in wars already now
[13:55] herman Bergson: That is a Hobbesian approach Kiki
[13:55] Bruce Mowbray: anthropological studies have been done of SL that would tend to differ... no offense.
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: like Thomas Malabry's book
[13:56] herman Bergson: Sure Bruce...
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: sorry...
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: that is about econimic ties, and nuclear arms...
[13:56] herman Bergson: No plz...We love good input..
[[13:57] herman Bergson: Interesting to read about Thomas Malabry
[13:57] Bruce Mowbray: one of the major theses of MAKING VIRTUAL WORLDS (by Malabry) is that there is an emergent system of ethics in operation.
[13:57] herman Bergson: I'll have a look at that certainly
[13:57] Rodney Handrick: what's the name of the book?
[13:57] Bruce Mowbray: It's a brilliant study, really.
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: have to see that
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes interesting....
[13:58] herman Bergson: Because the ethics....that are WE...the RL moral beings
[13:58] Bruce Mowbray: MAKING VIRTUAL WORLDS- Linden Labs and Second Life -- by Thomas Malaby (2009)
[13:58] herman Bergson: Thxn Bruce!
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: thanks Bruce
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you
[13:59] herman Bergson: However...all bad things from RL all missing here
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: mostly
[13:59] Bruce Mowbray: I am about 2/3 through with it -- and it has really opened my eyes to a lot of the SL experience.
[13:59] herman Bergson: I can be run over by truck...fall from a height of 2000m
[13:59] herman Bergson: no scratch at all
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:59] herman Bergson: That makes a big difference
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: here you can loose your connection
[14:00] Bruce Mowbray: or crash...
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: an accident
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: and i could visit philosophy lectures here ;-)
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: we'll ultimately break the bounds of the business model that currently obtains here ㋡
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[14:00] Josiane Llewellyn: You can lose money you have invested here in inventory.
[14:00] herman Bergson: I even can stop this world from being for me by pulling my plug forever
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: the deeper logic of this place is very different
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: exactly Josiane
[14:01] Rosie Hexicola: but we tend to want to re-create real life here... heard about those sims where your avatar can die?
[14:01] Bruce Mowbray: But in SL, there are also the three types of PROPERTY, no?
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...this is not our subject of today but damn interesting from a philophical point of view
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: yes, it is ㋡
[14:01] Bruce Mowbray: THIS is a commonly owned piece of property -- or is it?
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: to die means to be returned to your homelocation
[14:01] herman Bergson: At least a fun subject...
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: it is owned by Linden Labs, really
[14:02] Kiki Walpanheim: intriged to read on economics from now on ;-)
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: we are here on sufferance
[14:02] herman Bergson: We are all property of Linden Lab
[14:02] Bruce Mowbray: This lecture is "community" property -- once it is delivered, no?
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes
[14:02] herman Bergson: It is even common property by posting it in the blog Bruce
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: true, we are in their domain
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes, we own our ideas here, nothing else that i can see
[14:03] Bruce Mowbray: Yes, that is my point. The 3 types of property seem to be alive and well in SL.
[14:03] herman Bergson: Oh yes,,, I'll consider that in my next lecture Bruce...
[14:03] Kiki Walpanheim: communism is about ...no private property...
[14:03] herman Bergson: How property rules apply in SL compared to RL
[14:03] Bruce Mowbray: [[[ hold on to your iPad, Professor....]]]
[14:04] herman Bergson: Well I think we have got plenty of new ideas to think about...
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[14:04] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:04] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[14:04] herman Bergson: So may I thank you for your great discussion and participation
[14:04] Bruce Mowbray: mmmm. . . interesting discussion today.
[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[14:04] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[[14:04] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[14:04] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[14:04] Bruce Mowbray: THANKS to ALL.
[14:04] Abraxas Nagy: thank you herman
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all
[14:05] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i think!!!
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: congrats Herman with the 250
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: congrats with the Herman 250
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: and thanks for today
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: thanks and dry today
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: see you all
[14:05] Bruce Mowbray: YAYYYY for the 250!!!
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: see you all
[14:05] Kiki Walpanheim: congrats with anniversary
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: well be traveling but will have wi fi i hope!
[14:05] Rosie Hexicola: thank you Herman and congrats!
[14:05] herman Bergson: Thank you all ^_^
[14:05] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you professor :)
[[14:06] Kiki Walpanheim: see you all on thursday hopefully
[14:06] herman Bergson: Hope so too Kiki!
[14:07] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-)
[14:08] herman Bergson whispers: Well Doc..did you like it?
[14:08] herman Bergson: Hello Eleanor
[14:08] Eleanor Spiritor: no i
[14:08] Eleanor Spiritor: hi herman sorry i was so late
[14:08] dzjengis Parx: well my english is not that good
[14:08] dzjengis Parx: but i understood the most of it
[14:09] herman Bergson: Well just the fun of attending the class Doc ㋡
[14:09] herman Bergson: Doc is an old friend of mine
[14:09] dzjengis Parx: its a nice way to discuss
[14:09] Eleanor Spiritor: herman, i'd be interested in joining your group
[[14:10] herman Bergson: That can be arranged eleanor..just a sec
[14:10] dzjengis Parx: i have to go off thx herman
[14:10] dzjengis Parx: bye all
[14:10] Rodney Handrick: see you all later
[14:10] herman Bergson: Bye Doc...nice you could come ^_^
[14:11] Eleanor Spiritor: ty herman
[14:11] herman Bergson: You are welcome
[14:11] herman Bergson: Classes are on Tuesday and Thursday