Aristotle has shown, they can be truly generous only in a private city. Rather than help men grow in maturity, socialized property will stunt men’s moral development by removing their options. Men must be given the chance to be generous by granting them private property. FULL ARTICLE by Matt Summers
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10670/aristotles-legacy-the-reality-and-ethics-of-communal-property/
Aristotle’s Legacy: The Reality and Ethics of Communal Property
Previous post: A free market in money
Next post: A Truly Austrian Treatise
{ 5 comments }
“His quest to find the best form of political arrangement thus begins with the contemplation of which items in a city should be shared and which should be kept private.”
What “should be shared” is the non-coercion ethic; what “should be kept private” is everything else.
The incest thing could be easily solved by a sort of cattle-branding. Not that this is a bonus.
“Generally speaking, people pair with one another based on mutual attraction; and they create agreements for a continued partnership based on mutual consent. Both parties must consent to enter a relationship, but only one must oppose to opt out.
These agreements may include private bonding or exclude it, but the agreements should be voluntary”.
By these statements, Matt Summers plays directly (but unwittingly) into Plato’s hands. I don’t think Plato was recommending taking a caveman’s club to a woman. What he meant is exactly what Summers is recommending, viz “Generally speaking, people pair with one another based on mutual attraction” and by that I’m sure what Summers meant was “physical” attraction. And he seems to stop there without considering the greatest value a man or a woman could bestow on each other and that happens to be Love. And since it’s a value it has to be earned. And we all know Plato’s take on Love!
Without Love all you can expect is an arrangement of convenience as stated by Matt Summers, viz, “and they create agreements for a continued partnership based on mutual consent. Both parties must consent to enter a relationship, but only one must oppose to opt out”. It may as well be a commercial contract addressing the financial, social and sexual expectations in a so-called “relationship”. Note that there are no detriments to curb the urge for promiscuity on the part of either party because there has not been any exchange of or binding of values. Sex is good; it’s promiscuity that’s bad. And it is this horrendous practice of ignoring values at all cost that’s causing 40% of all relationships, including marriages, in the United States to fail. And it will continue to do so until people understand the value of Values.
good article with a “common” flaw.
the author, who I admire as a writer, falls into the trap of considering the “common” or all as “collective”.
A “collective” is a group. a group is two or more individuals. A collection needs to be contrasted to the whole to define itself.
A collective can exist within “all” of us, but loses its definition if one tries to apply it to all. A collective is part of the whole, not the whole.
If we all have ownership, we own in common. we do not have collective ownership. State ownership or corporate ownership is a form of collective ownership. Ownership by a group. The State is not all of us and obviously a corporation is not.
If we all have ownership in common, it doesn’t matter at all what any individual or collective does to detract or destroy the value of what we own, as long as all of us receive appropriate compensation because of this use or even abuse.
again, it is only the force of a collective that can misdirect this compensation. this is the nature of the “tradegy of the commons”, not some failing of human morality or lack of responsibility. it is also the weakest link in our system of private property.
Please ask someone to record this article as an MP3.
Comments on this entry are closed.