MrMetaKopos
@MrMetaKopos@slrpnk.net
- Comment on Rent is theft 1 week ago:
I don’t deny that coercive relationships exist… but I’m talking about “roots” like tool usage and cooperation in communal animals such as primates. It relates to the context of property ownership because animals mark their territory and use violence to enforce it. Hence why property as a concept is fundamentally violent.
Object ownership isn’t as fundamentally violent the way I see it.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying other than land ownership started as violent and tools were shared in small tribal collectives. This seems muddied to me. I don’t think small tribal bands protecting territory or sharing tools with their own tribe translates to a modern rental contract. There is no reason to believe that the origins of those behaviors should trump the reality of how these systems function today.
Today, object ownership allows a person to claim authority over an object that is in someone else’s hands. An ISP can remotely disable a modem. Or a manufacturer software-locks a tractor. This is territorial dominance.
In primitive societies, everyone had access to the tools that allowed them to function and survive. Today, you can be excluded from those tools. The exclusion is the violence.
Renting an object grants someone else the legal right to “mark territory”. This is not like a person letting another tribe member use the communal tool they just finished with. Those tools were communal and not private property. Renting an object is part of a fleet of tools you don’t use or plan to use. They protect that profit stream like a pack of chimpanzees patrolling their territory and evicting intruders with violence. modern owners can rip a tool from your hands by locking you out remotely by executing a script.
TBF One could also argue that …
Are you making this argument? Should I spend time addressing it?
- Comment on Rent is theft 1 week ago:
Renting objects on the other hand is rooted in mutual benefit. Tool creation and use being separate skills creates a natural opportunity for cooperation.
Up to a point. If I rent a modem from my ISP, I eventually meet and then exceed the value of the modem. If you rent a $60 modem for $15 a month, you have fully compensated the ISP for the tool by the fourth month. Every payment after that is no longer a trade for someone’s labor; it is a fee because someone else holds the title to the hardware. A mutual arrangement would recognize that once your payments cover the cost of the tool and its maintenance, the ownership should shift to you. , This stops being cooperation.
- Comment on Rent is theft 1 week ago:
Rental of land is unique because land ownership is made by drwing line on a map and drawing up a contract with the state. Equipment rental is the product of labor that has transformed natural resources into something people can use.
- Comment on Do people eat this? 2 weeks ago:
Poor… And not normal poor, but wartime poor. It was invented by Heinz to sell beans in England.
- Comment on How does capitalism differ from crony capitalism? 2 weeks ago:
Capitalism, (needlessly) increases competition for resources, access to markets, and even results in fierce competition over abstract things.
Because there is an increased competition for resources, resource hoarding increases as well. Managed release of those resources along with who deserves access to those resources is a political endeavor. Not at the level of the state, but when you end up having a laissiz-faire system, there is no state to prevent hoarding of necessities. And now a situation can emerge where one company hoards a necessary resource and manages its release to some and not others. They will have become the state.
- Comment on Truth hurts! 2 weeks ago:
God dammit Donut!
- Comment on Mandola effect 3 weeks ago: