I've been doing a lot of reading on rights, and on various political philosophies. And when it comes to arguing with the extreme right, one sees that most of their ideologues have some self contradictory ideas. For example they will deny that any "groups" have rights -- and yet insist that corporations and partnerships should be exempt from that concept.
Now I can see the value of corporations. A group is always stronger than an individual. And I can also see why they are inconsistent on the subject. Most of these ideologues have bought the idea that there is no legitimate purpose for government and that Government is the source of all tyranny. But those who castigate "Gubbornment" while tauting the beauties of corporativism are comparing Frankenstein with Frankenstein's monster, and calling the monster beautiful. Corporations exist to allow individuals to get together to reduce their risk -- which means sometimes giving some individuals license to defraud, despoil, disenfranchise, and dispossess others, in the name of a collective "company" -- while avoiding personal responsibility for the consequences.
To me the purpose of Just government is to reconcile the needs of the "commons" us commoners, with the needs of "ownership."
We need to own our liberty, ourselves, our lands, our "personal effects" and we need to be free to do, to succeed, and yes to fail. At the same time we need to band together in communities so that "united we stand -- divided we fall" and the division of property needs to be "fair", "agreeable", and neither oppressive from the many to the few, nor oppressive to the many.
We don't live in an aristocracy. The term aristocracy is usually a lie anyway. The "capable few" may exist in each generation, but their progeny don't inherit their capability with any degree of reliability. Democracy is about Freedom first, equal access to the "playing field", and setting a world where maximal freedom and agreement is sought for all "common" activities.
We own the nation in common -- that is why this is a democracy and not an aristocracy. And we need balance between the "commons" and the "anticommons" or else the country will devolve into tyranny. Indeed any of the systems that bind us together, cities and towns, roads, communications, etceteras... are commons because even if they are owned by individuals, they require participation by many people to function and no one person can effectively "control them" except with the cooperation of others.
I asked myself what distinguishes "Aristocracy" from Democracy? And the answer was that in an Aristocracy there is the "Anticommons" -- someone or some group owns everything. When that happens availability of things people need becomes unavailable. In a Monarchy or Aristocracy someone, or a small group, owns the country itself. Where there is no commons there tends to be oppression of those who would otherwise be able to depend on the commons for some part of their income. Where the commons (such as rivers, streams, roads, networked communication, and the legal system) are owned by groups of people and not accessable to everyone then some are defined as "outlaws" by their very existence. The poor are the result of the "anticommons" -- the exclusion of people from opportunity, trade, work, participation in the economy.
We should have the opportunity to own our private land, our private possessions. To actually have that should is always at the price of asserting our individual power by banding together and agreeing with others that "I'll respect your property if you respect mine." The reality is that most property is contingent. Corporations such as Banks, Lending companies, etcetera exist because of this. If you don't believe me (as Patrick notes in the previous post) don't pay your mortgage and see how much "absolute" respect the Mortgage company has for "your property."
We have to protect and respect the commons, because ultimately we are all commoners until someone owns all the commons and then we are all slaves.
Chris
Posted by cholte at April 12, 2007 09:38 PMYes, Chris, but it is Majority rule. What if everyone were perverted elephant rapists? What kind of common is that? what is common? there is no common, it is a word that causes one to fall in quicksand.
Maltz
Posted by: Bruce Maltz at April 15, 2007 07:10 PMPerhaps taking ownership of our own olives may be a start at owning our own land.
Respect for others land can be transfered to resepct for other people and perhaps you have the common point, isntead of owning land owning responsibility for being respectworthy.
Mutual respect may be the source of individual happiness and not respet-worthy land ownership, perhaps.
Posted by: Patrick at April 17, 2007 12:15 PMBruce, the "commons" is based on the idea of "commonality." The original concept is useful because it was defined in the context of the "anti-commons" behavior of Aristocrats; Imperial and Feudal tyranny. A commons represents the fact that common folks such as ourselves have rights to certain things too.
Ownership is never absolute, and absolute ownership that comes at the price of tyranny and oppression is illegitimate and unjust even if authorities assert otherwise and use weapons and pieces of paper to "prove" their assertions. This is the historical lesson of the "commons."
Land is simply a collection of matter -- a "thing" -- that has a property of attraction "Gravity" so big that humans can cling to it's surface. The general principle of property may be "ownership"/"control." But some things, like the earth itself, are too large and too intertwined with other things for any one person to control all by his iddybit.
Next, because humans are part of inter-related systems; the legal system, communications systems, commerce systems, travel systems, energy systems, etceteras... We cannot survive if we cut off access, even to those things we claim as our own property.
My computer is "mine" but it is connected to yours, and we are sharing common spaces at least temporarily. This makes the internet a commons, and we need to keep it a commons where fair access is restricted as little as possible in order to maximize the "common benefit" while keeping the system functional.
This is the main point of talking about the concept of "commons" and re-examining basic notions of rights, freedom, and democracy.
Experience teaches me that ideology needs to be clear, point to functional solutions, be testible, and be logically coherent, or it is pretty much likely to cause more trouble than it helps solve. I'm trying to get around that by taking common old ideas, and looking them in context both historical and with other competing ideas.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at April 24, 2007 09:57 PM