<[Bill Leach 940909.10:39 EST(EDT)]
NET
I might be perceived as "beating this to death" but I am still quite
uncomfortable with some of the "conclusions" that I see as resulting from
thinking in PCT terms about the nature of man in collective action. I am
specifically thinking in terms of "property rights" concepts.
When I asserted some time ago something along the lines that "property
rights" or "ownership" was a "natural" concept to man, it was asserted
that such was only "custom" and (at least implied) that there was nothing
"in the nature of man" that should cause such concepts to exist. (and I
recognize the logical absurdity of the preceeding but I am not able just
now to properly phrase the objections)
What occured to me recently, is that "property rights" and "ownership"
are concepts that probably came into existance as the result of
"negative" events.
When "primitive man" created something, it is rather doubtful that any
concept of "ownership" existed until something so created was forcibly
taken away. Such a person "sensed" being wronged even if the concepts
necessary to describe or analyze what had happened did not exist.
I think that we all accept that "personal responsibility" for the results
of our behaviour as a "correct" and "proper" systems concept.
I think that this goes much deeper than "just" philosophy. In a very
real way we are responsible for the results of our behaviour. In the
primitive life the natural feedback enforced the responsibility
irrespective of the attitude of the organism.
Organized society alters this feedback greatly, usually be reducing the
consequences of an error on the part of the organism but not always. I
can't help but think of the difference between the "natural" and
"socially driven" consequences of "being a witch" say about 300 years ago.
I feel that somehow this recognition of "personal responsibility" is
deeply tied to the understand that there really is some sort of
fundamental ownership.
That what we generally mean today may be greatly removed from this I
don't doubt and carrying ownership to such things as "all of the earth"
or "all food" quickly destroys the legal ownership concepts in most of
the present world. I am personally convinced that the opposite position,
that is, no one owns anything save their own body, is equally absurd.
-bill