Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This might be SLIGHTLY too big for small-scale Sunday, but I will give it a go:
What is the strongest argument against "you will own nothing and be happy" as a concept?" Ideally an argument that can be expressed in a few sentences of average complexity.
For instance, one argument might be that "people will not be able to build up wealth." However, I note that most of the property people own are depreciating assets. It actually might make sense for someone to not own a car and instead simply rent one on a weekly basis from a fleet of vehicles maintained by a larger company that are mostly standardized and will suit whatever their needs are at the time. Or a system like Citibike for cars. Or maybe later on, just call a robotaxi as needed.
This means they will not have to worry about the costs of repairs and maintenance, or insurance, or storage, and they can expect to get new models on a regular basis, thus it reduces a potential source of stress and unexpected costs to a simple monthly subscription. This seems like it would work well for a lot of people, and save them money in the long run!
And similar can apply to housing! If you live in a rented, pre-furnished apartment you are far more flexible if you want a change of scenery, to expand your living space, or need to move to a new city to pursue opportunities. Home ownership introduces lots of complexity and presents an illiquid asset even if it appreciates.
Same can apply to, say, smartphones, which upgrade so fast that 'owning' one almost doesn't make sense as it becomes outdated in < 1 year.
So extending some logic, I begin to see reasons why the average person might prefer to own nothing but a retirement account, and simply have a subscription service for most items they will use throughout their life.
What philosophical, economic, psychological, social, biological, political etc. etc. argument do you think most strongly refutes or rejects this as an ideal?
Taking a guess at the argument that will be the most common response, Rot-13'd:
Vg qvfpbhentrf snzvyl sbezngvba naq yrnqf gb n pvgvmrael gung vf vapncnoyr bs erfvfgvat nhgubevgl.
(Let us be clear, I'm not supporting owning nothing, but I do plan on trying to do a steelman or similar in the future)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UrEUzKTt7j0
Succinctly, it's that people who don't want you to own things want power over you. Vehicles, guns, food, wealth, houses are sources of power and sovereignty. If you own nothing, just have a few lines in some bank's excel spreadsheet, then you're much more vulnerable than someone who owns things. Your bank could freeze your assets for being politically unacceptable. What are you going to do - hire a lawyer? With what money ;)
Or just look at the wikipedia page, it talks about how Auken proposed giving up control of electrical appliances to reduce power consumption. So at peak use times, perhaps it would reduce your aircon usage. That makes economic sense but it transfers power from the individual to the company or state. Each tiny loss of power and control matters, convenience comes with a price. We can't - and shouldn't - all be autarchic farmer-warrior kings of our own domain, the Somalia experience. Neither should we be totally docile serfs, hoping that our lords and masters see fit to treat us well. There needs to be a balance and I personally think we're already too close to the latter, better to arrest this trend than accelerate it.
I'll add to the rot13 and say that people who want you unable to resist authority, who want more power from you, are probably untrustworthy. They're at least suspicious. 'Relax, you don't need to bring your pepper spray or the phone in your purse - I'm a professional boxer' is all well and good, how do you know the boxer is not the threat?
This ultimately seems like a generalized argument against centralized authority, however.
There's a version I can conceive of with enough competition between various entities that it is less likely that a person gets frozen out of everything at once due to violating the policy of one of them. And likewise the competition prevents any one company from engaging in full monopoly pricing to suck all the consumer surplus out of the system.
What would you say the optimal balance looks like, and is that sustainable as an equilibrium? Or barring that, what metrics would you examine to determine where the balance lies, and why are those metrics important?
I ask because it can be a bit hard to measure "individual sovereignty" on a scale or "convenience" as an objective phenomenon. How much 'inconvenience' should we accept to avoid giving away too much autonomy?
Core capabilities are decentralized and privately owned, preferably by many people as opposed to few. Economic transactions via crypto for instance, private ownership of weapons, private ownership of land, private ownership of websites and communications.
Metrics - self-employed as % of the population, wealth equality, number of people arrested for social media posts per year, size of government as % of GDP
I want a more strictly defined role for the state and large companies. Police should be focused on real crimes as opposed to speech, the organs of government should be less ideological. Of course government is innately political but you should not be able to get ahead of the queue in the NHS because you're pro-Palestinian. The US Air Force should not have a written desire to reduce the percentage of white male pilots to X%, even if they say 'oh this is still totally meritocratic and just an aspiration' as a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Institutions and companies should be purely focused on their formal goals, not social engineering. If people think 'oh this cause is worthy' they should donate their own money, not company funds. Spending other people's money on other people is the worst kind of spending, it should be minimized where possible.
Governments should accept limitations in their powers, not grasping at extraordinary interpretations of the constitution or law to retroactively justify doing things they have no head of power for (this happens all the time in Australia).
In some areas I want stronger government powers, to speed through industrial projects to completion, produce housing and crack down on crime. But I want them wielded by people with a different understanding of what their role is and what they're aiming for.
Clearly this is a difficult equilibrium to maintain. Governments and big corporations all want more power and control, that's a natural desire. Ideologues want more power so they can achieve their goals. The population at large has a tendency to be distracted by prosperity or the media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link