Argumentation

[ALB]

Thought this from Zeitgeist about the concept of “property” in a moneyless world of abundance makes a useful point that is relevant to this discussion, ie that the concept of ownership will come to be replaced by that of use and access to use:

Quote:

Concurrently, one of the more in depth changes in values and lifestyles will be the way people think about ‘property’. In most of the world today, property is a powerful concept, with people often associating their social status with what they own. As stated before, the monetary system requires ‘cyclical consumption’ to function. This naturally leads to the need for people to be manipulated into thinking they want or need a particular good or service. With the powerful tactics of modern advertising, most in the world support an artificial, materialistic value system that entails wanting more and more goods and services, often regardless of their necessity or utility.In a Resource-Based Economy, the monetary system will no longer pollute the human mind via its manipulative arm – “advertising”. The endless sea of billboards, media commercials, magazines and the like will no longer poison the landscape or our perceptions. This will cause a dramatic shift in the human value system and hence lifestyle.More powerfully, in a Resource-Based Economy there is no reason for property. Property is an outgrowth of scarcity. People who had to work very hard to create or obtain a product or resource in turn protected it because it had immense value relative to the labor entailed along with the scarcity associated. Property is not an “American” or “Capitalist” idea… it is a primitive mental perspective generated from generations of scarcity. People claim “ownership” because it is a legal form of protection.In a system of abundance, without the need for money, the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant. In this new system no one owns anything. Instead, everyone has unrestricted access to everything. Ownership is a massive burden. No longer will a person need to live in one place. One could travel the world constantly. Anything needed is obtained, without restriction. There is no reason for abuse for there is nothing to gain. You can’t steal things that no one owns and you certainly couldn’t sell them.Household items are obtained through central distribution in the cities, while recreational items are available on call or near the location of their use. For example, if you go to a golf course you would select, on site, your clubs from the most effectively designed models available. You use them, and then you return them. If you decide to keep the clubs, go ahead – that is your burden… for why would a person want to transport, maintain and store golf clubs, when they can always have access to them and then return them onsite? Our homes today are full of junk that we hold onto because of the supposed value they maintain. This waste will no longer be needed.In this model, the city complex or, in fact, the entire world, is really your home. Instead of having extraneous items like recreational equipment and vehicles sitting about your physical house, collecting dust when they are not in use, they are stored centrally for everyone’s free access, with products being utilized actively, minimizing redundant waste.If you require an automobile for whatever reason, the car is made available for you. When you get to your destination, the satellite based driving system will automatically make the car available for others to use, as opposed to sitting in some parking lot wasting space and time.In society today, the need for property results in extreme product overlap and redundant waste. There is no reason for every person to “own” a car. Most only drive them for an hour a day. It is much more intelligent to create a universal shared system, for it dramatically reduces waste, redundancy and increases space and efficiency.-The Zeitgeist Movement – Observations and Responses. Activist Orientation Guide.(pp.67-69)

 

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Socialism is a system for the direct fulfilment of human need therefore it is not some abstract appeal to property rights that will offer people protection but the fact that each persons well being and security has become the interest of all.

Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?

[robbo203]

Fabian wrote:

 I did. Being that you don’t have any ethical stance on autonomy of the individual I want you to concretely say does that mean that it’s not wrong for someone to take a kidney from me without my consent. And if the answer is no, then why? If you don’t accept my right to exclusive use of my body (being that you don’t believe in anything like what is called natural right), I want to know on what do you base your assumption that my body will be safe in a socialist society?

 I would argue that a socialist society is one in which the fullest possible autonomy of the individual will obtain precisely because there is no leverage anyone or any group could exercise over you or anyone else where labour is performed on a purely voluntary  basis and where goods and service are made available on a free access.  Under these circumstances political power implodes completely and there can be no such thing as a coercive state. It is only under these circumstances that you can be sure that your body will be completely safe in every sense The only form of coercion in a socialist society will be moral pressure based on the clear recognition that we all depend upon each other and therefore  stand in need of each others other help.and coperation.   “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself ” is a pretty sound moral principle which I consider will find deep roots in a socialist society. You would not like having you kidney taken from you without your consent.  Well then by the same token, you would not want to forcibly remove without their consent the kidney stones of other individuals who you love alongside, depend upon and value for themselves, in the free society we call socialism

[DJP]

Do people act a certain way because of their ‘moral principles’? Or do ‘moral principles’ arise because people act a certain way?In other words “Where do my values come?” (incidentally some people I met through Zeitgeist have just released an ebook with this title) Once we can answer this question we are probably well on the way to knowing how we can go about changing them.

[ALB]

Fabian wrote:

Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?

You could put it that way and enabling people to fulfil their needs is what socialism will bring about. But there is no need to make out a moral or philosophical case for socialism since socialism will not come about through people accepting such a case. It will come about when material circumstances eventually lead the excluded majority to realise that their material interest (in fulfilling their needs) can only be achieved by making productive resources the common heritage of all, ie as a practical solution to a practical problem, not as the implementation of an abstract principle. This may well be reflected, as others here have pointed out, in a feeling that this change is right/fair/just, etc. In fact I would imagine it will be.

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Do people act a certain way because of their ‘moral principles’? Or do ‘moral principles’ arise because people act a certain way?

 Why can’t it be both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Fabian wrote:

Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?

You could put it that way and enabling people to fulfil their needs is what socialism will bring about. But there is no need to make out a moral or philosophical case for socialism since socialism will not come about through people accepting such a case. It will come about when material circumstances eventually lead the excluded majority to realise that their material interest (in fulfilling their needs) can only be achieved by making productive resources the common heritage of all, ie as a practical solution to a practical problem, not as the implementation of an abstract principle. This may well be reflected, as others here have pointed out, in a feeling that this change is right/fair/just, etc. In fact I would imagine it will be.

 You don’t need to make out  some kind of separate moral and philosophical case for socialism  – simply to recognise that the case for socialism has both moral and material aspects to it .  It makes no sense for example to criticise capitalism on the grounds that it exploits the working class without meaning by this that you consider such exploitation to be morally reprehensible. Certainly socialism will be in the material interests of the working class but it will also be the expression of our sense of moral outrage at what capitalism does to us and our environment. 

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Why can’t it be both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Maybe it could be both ways, but the question “where do values come from?” still remains.

[Anonymous]

Kuddos to robbo203 for the first post that actually goes to answer the topic.

DJP wrote:

Do people act a certain way because of their ‘moral principles’? Or do ‘moral principles’ arise because people act a certain way?

All action is motivated by something being valued. Some consequentialist, deontological or virtue ethical view motivates all actions of every mentally able human, the point is identifying it, and them seeing if it’s soundly argumented and if the rest of the views of the same person (or organisation) is consistent with it it. That’s what justifying your views means.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

All action is motivated by something being valued. Some consequentialist, deontological or virtue ethical view motivates all actions of every mentally able human, the point is identifying it, and them seeing if it’s soundly argumented and if the rest of the views of the same person (or organisation) is consistent with it it. That’s what justifying your views means.

All action? A bold claim!Sorry to bust your bubble but there’s plenty of evidence from neuro-science and experimental psychology that would strongly go against such a suggestion.But then we are back to the question “where do our values come from?” I believe I know what the answer is, but I’m leaving you to work it out for yourself for now.

[Author]

Posts