From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 20:28:53 MST
Rafal writes
> > Interesting: "social compact". I wonder if that's what I've
> > been defending when I defend private property. Private property
> > is a *social compact*, I guess, that has shown itself to be
> > utterly necessary for the evolution and progress of civilization.
> > Its lynchpin, if you will.
> >
> > But to ask just who is bound by it is to ask a very good
> > question. The usual situation with regard to private property
> > seems to apply easily to the case where you are running your
> > own simulations inside your own castle, and we are on the
> > outside wondering what you are doing. But from the inside, well,
> > this is something quite new evolutionarily.
>
> ### You might get closer to consistency if you think about "private
> property" strictly as a tool to promote sentient well-being.
As a universal utilitarian, that sounds good to me.
> It tends to promote well-being by allowing to build a
> civilization from deceptive, cantankerous, selfish
> creatures we are, but at times it reduces the well-being
> of some sentients,
Yes, as in people who utilize others' property without
permission---indeed they are less well off.
> as when they are extended to the ownership of the
> sentients themselves.
Yes, that's better than my example. In my example,
after all, the loss in benefit to those who cannot
freely use that which "belongs" to others is more
than compensated for by the benefit to all that
eventually obtains from the maintenance of private
property.
But this applies to your example too: probably there
are (or have been) some possible societies in which
slavery enhanced everyone's well being, even though
it was bad for some (the slaves). Of course, I don't
know of any examples, but Thomas Jefferson might
argue with us.
> In certain select situations, property rights have
> to yield to the more important goal, freedom from
> physical pain.
True, as a generality. But how does one weigh the
costs and benefits? The axiom of private property
is much more objective. Of course, some people will
retort that the Central Committee utilizing the best
Scientific Data can decide when the principle of
private property has to be sacrificed because of
the interests of some people.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:33 MST