Do We Own?

[genkaus]

It would be addressed by not being part of this system, in my particular brand. Others may wish to include it.

Then that would be a pretty big disadvantage for your system, wouldn't it? Deferring use for a future date where our need may be greater is a significant aspect of human life.

A futures contract is a business agreement agreed upon by both parties. Under our system (and under the priority use system) this would be possible, but in neither system is the assurance of said value built into the system itself.

How would a futures contract work in priority use system? A party cannot guarantee that an object would be available for use at a future date.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then that would be a pretty big disadvantage for your system, wouldn't it? Deferring use for a future date where our need may be greater is a significant aspect of human life.

In the context of a situation where someone wanted to defer use or invest in something sure - but stated in a vacuum that's an empty truth. If a system which does not allow deferment is judged based upon the metric of deferment we could always call it disadvantaged. We could do this -with anything-. I'd always defer to productivity over investment and deferment - especially in the case of real estate, personally. We'd have to assume that the latter two were an appropriate use of said property before it became a disadvantage in and of itself. Different tools for different jobs and all that jazz.

How would a futures contract work in priority use system? A party cannot guarantee that an object would be available for use at a future date.

Same as it would now. I simply wouldn't apply futures, investment, or deferment to real estate. You could still set a futures contract for your goods or services. I could set the price of a bushel of tomato in today, and deliver in 95 days. For example - in the context of a contractual agreement.

Consider the manner in which "public" funds and resources are currently allocated. Proposals are made which detail the cost, the length of use, the expected results. There's nothing fundamentally different in the way that this is/could be done and a priority use system. The organization has "x" - proposals are collected for the use of "x", the proposals are judged on their merits and we move forward.

[genkaus]

In the context of a situation where someone wanted to defer use or invest in something sure - but stated in a vacuum that's an empty truth. I'd always defer to productivity over investment and deferment - especially in the case of real estate. We'd have to assume that the latter two were an appropriate use of said property before it became a disadvantage in and of itself. Different tools for different jobs and all that jazz.

That's kind of my point. Under the ownership model you get to choose whether to opt for deferment or current productivity. You get to be the judge of when the deferment becomes a disadvantage and you get to bear the responsibility (profit or loss). Others get to make their own choices with regards to their property. The same freedom won't be available under the priority use model.

Same as it would now. I simply wouldn't apply futures, investment, or deferment to real estate. You could still set a futures contract for your goods or services. I could set the price of a bushel of tomato in today, and deliver in 95 days. For example - in the context of a contractual agreement.

The question assumed that the priority use model applied universally - and not just to real estate. If I don't own the bushel of tomatoes but simply have the right to use for a certain period, then I can't ensure that I would be able to make the delivery in 95 days.

Your idea here seems to be that the priority use model should only apply to specific resources and commodities, while others would remain under the ownership model. If so, then how would you decide which resources to place under the priority use model and which under the ownership model?

Consider the manner in which "public" funds and resources are currently allocated. Proposals are made which detail the cost, the length of use, the expected results. There's nothing fundamentally different in the way that this is/could be done and a priority use system. The organization has "x" - proposals are collected for the use of "x", the proposals are judged on their merits and we move forward.

Actually, the fundamental difference remains the same. The government can choose to reject all proposals, thus making deferment the default option. It can choose not to invest or spend the funds in any of the proposed ways and they would simply lie in the government coffers.

A good example would be how the government chooses not to develop all the resources at its disposal simultaneously. It requires - as a rule - to reserve 33% of its land area under forest cover - an area without any tangible productivity - to protect the environment. Under priority use model, someone else would get the dibs on using this land since no one is making any use of it.

[Whateverist]

Couldn't be arsed to read all the back and forth between genkaus and Rhythm. Any chance of getting a short statement of the issue?

To the OP, perhaps it isn't ownership per se that is objectionable. But some claims are more reasonable than others. I doubt anyone is going to challenge my claim to the cloths on my back, the truck I'm making payments on or the dog I feed every day. They'll probably respect my right to the place I live and the garden I keep. But my claim to all the land as far as the eye can see (even if I have documentation) could meet with some objection. If I claim to own the shore where my property borders the sea, more problems. If I claim the right to use the air space above my land to spew waste from my factory, problem. Ownership is something we've created and codified, but which is open to being refined. I'm for reasonable limits to ownership and am totally open to placing limits to how much wealth one individual can claim for himself. It would have to be reasonably and fairly done, but I suspect we'll need to go there eventually.

[genkaus]

Couldn't be arsed to read all the back and forth between genkaus and Rhythm. Any chance of getting a short statement of the issue?

Rhythm suggested issuing priority use rights as an alternative to ownership. Since then, we've been discussing the pros and cons of its application.

To the OP, perhaps it isn't ownership per se that is objectionable. But some claims are more reasonable than others. I doubt anyone is going to challenge my claim to the cloths on my back, the truck I'm making payments on or the dog I feed every day. They'll probably respect my right to the place I live and the garden I keep. But my claim to all the land as far as the eye can see (even if I have documentation) could meet with some objection. If I claim to own the shore where my property borders the sea, more problems. If I claim the right to use the air space above my land to spew waste from my factory, problem. Ownership is something we've created and codified, but which is open to being refined. I'm for reasonable limits to ownership and am totally open to placing limits to how much wealth one individual can claim for himself. It would have to be reasonably and fairly done, but I suspect we'll need to go there eventually.

My view is that you can own anything that you've bought, produced or been given. And while this raises the unresolved issue of original ownership (by what right do you claim a right to this unclaimed land), it works just fine in current political systems where all unclaimed resources would be considered government property. As for limits, I'd say that an individual can claim as much as he can produce or buy with what he has produced. The only reasonable restriction I see is that he should not claim anything by force or theft.

[Whateverist]

Couldn't be arsed to read all the back and forth between genkaus and Rhythm. Any chance of getting a short statement of the issue?

Rhythm suggested issuing priority use rights as an alternative to ownership. Since then, we've been discussing the pros and cons of its application.

Thanks.

To the OP, perhaps it isn't ownership per se that is objectionable. But some claims are more reasonable than others. I doubt anyone is going to challenge my claim to the cloths on my back, the truck I'm making payments on or the dog I feed every day. They'll probably respect my right to the place I live and the garden I keep. But my claim to all the land as far as the eye can see (even if I have documentation) could meet with some objection. If I claim to own the shore where my property borders the sea, more problems. If I claim the right to use the air space above my land to spew waste from my factory, problem. Ownership is something we've created and codified, but which is open to being refined. I'm for reasonable limits to ownership and am totally open to placing limits to how much wealth one individual can claim for himself. It would have to be reasonably and fairly done, but I suspect we'll need to go there eventually.

My view is that you can own anything that you've bought, produced or been given. And while this raises the unresolved issue of original ownership (by what right do you claim a right to this unclaimed land), it works just fine in current political systems where all unclaimed resources would be considered government property. As for limits, I'd say that an individual can claim as much as he can produce or buy with what he has produced. The only reasonable restriction I see is that he should not claim anything by force or theft.

Exactly. So my claim to owning the stolen goods you gave me might not be legit. Likewise Bush's claim to the presidency given to him in the second term by the political stooges he and other conservatives have been stocking the court with, could also be challenged.

More controversially, I think there should be significant limits on inheritance and we should look at any other such conventions which serve to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and suppress upward mobility. We have a real interest as a society in not letting the masses be turned into serfs for the 1%. Violence is always justifiable to that end, though never the best alternative.

[genkaus]

More controversially, I think there should be significant limits on inheritance and we should look at any other such conventions which serve to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and suppress upward mobility. We have a real interest as a society in not letting the masses be turned into serfs for the 1%. Violence is always justifiable to that end, though never the best alternative.

Controversial is right. Can you justify this view without opening the door to other equally atrocious actions all in the name of the good of society?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's kind of my point. Under the ownership model you get to choose whether to opt for deferment or current productivity. You get to be the judge of when the deferment becomes a disadvantage and you get to bear the responsibility (profit or loss). Others get to make their own choices with regards to their property. The same freedom won't be available under the priority use model.

That's true. But again we say "under a model which excludes deferment you can't defer".

The question assumed that the priority use model applied universally - and not just to real estate. If I don't own the bushel of tomatoes but simply have the right to use for a certain period, then I can't ensure that I would be able to make the delivery in 95 days.

Personally, I couldn't even mount an argument for an absolute and all encompassing position even if I tried real hard.

Your idea here seems to be that the priority use model should only apply to specific resources and commodities, while others would remain under the ownership model. If so, then how would you decide which resources to place under the priority use model and which under the ownership model?

What I might set and what others might set as appropriate uses of such a tool (and what process we might use) is a wide open field I'd say.

Actually, the fundamental difference remains the same. The government can choose to reject all proposals, thus making deferment the default option.

Can they? Why?

It can choose not to invest or spend the funds in any of the proposed ways and they would simply lie in the government coffers.

We already leverage a way to deal with this sort of situation. Spend it or lose it.

A good example would be how the government chooses not to develop all the resources at its disposal simultaneously. It requires - as a rule - to reserve 33% of its land area under forest cover - an area without any tangible productivity - to protect the environment.

Then we're all paying for that loss in productivity. That has to be understood and accepted. For whatever reason we've decided that were willing to absorb that loss. This may not always be an option, of course.

Under priority use model, someone else would get the dibs on using this land since no one is making any use of it.

Yep. If they had a good proposal I can't see why not.

[genkaus]

That's true. But again we say "under a model which excludes deferment you can't defer".

That doesn't address my point. I'm saying that excluding deferment is a disadvantage of the system

Personally, I couldn't even mount an argument for an absolute and all encompassing position even if I tried real hard.

C'mon. Gimme something to shoot at.

What I might set and what others might set as appropriate uses of such a tool (and what process we might use) is a wide open field I'd say.

So it is. But we have to start somewhere.

Can they? Why?

For a variety of reasons - like none of the proposals guaranteeing results or all off them being unpopular moves or the funds being reserved - though not necessarily used - for a project that may never get off the drawing board.

We already leverage a way to deal with this sort of situation. Spend it or lose it.

Under the current scenario, government does have the option of simply saving it.

Then we're all paying for that loss in productivity. That has to be understood and accepted. For whatever reason we've decided that were willing to absorb that loss. This may not always be an option, of course.

Its debatable whether we all did agree to it. Especially since a lot of private companies are constantly lobbying for developing those lands.

Yep. If they had a good proposal I can't see why not.

A simple reason being one of the lesser known responsibilities of the government - to make sure that atleast some resources are left for the future generations to use.

[The Grand Nudger]

That doesn't address my point. I'm saying that excluding deferment is a disadvantage of the system .

........only if you value deferment, and only if it's applied in an area where you feel that deferment is advantageous...and only if you judge the system on the metrics of "does it include deferment".

C'mon. Gimme something to shoot at/So it is. But we have to start somewhere.

Well, we've already got real estate on the table.

For a variety of reasons - like none of the proposals guaranteeing results or all off them being unpopular moves or the funds being reserved - though not necessarily used - for a project that may never get off the drawing board.

Sounds like inefficient (and potentially corrupt) administration.

Under the current scenario, government does have the option of simply saving it.

Sure, but we don't have to grant that option - as it's not necessary to a priority system

Its debatable whether we all did agree to it. Especially since a lot of private companies are constantly lobbying for developing those lands.

Oh I know..and wouldn't it just be hilarious if those same lobbyists could not participate as there was nothing to leverage/no room in the system. Lobbysists are no more a problem for priority use than they are for ownership. If we don;t want them, we boot them.

A simple reason being one of the lesser known responsibilities of the government - to make sure that atleast some resources are left for the future generations to use.

Reserving land is not the only way (and I would argue not even close to the "best" way) to accomplish such. Quick and easy, think like a proponent of priority use. What do you do when you want to preserve resources or protect environments? You include it in the proposal requirements.