Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It's not that I will “answer” yes or no – I don't have enough competence. Rather, I will warn commentators against skepticism. There is no “sofa philosophy” in the question, but there is a real, academic philosophy, which is an interesting question. Tyler Ivanovich is a follower of Professor of philosophy and political science John Christman, who puts forward this thesis in the 1994 book The Myth of Property.
The purpose of any legal institution is to limit your personal rights in favor of the sovereign.�
If you live on the land of the king, accept the fictions that he introduced: private property, taxes, etc.�
If you put money on the king , then any property in the kingdom is yours: you can take what you want and from whom you want, do not pay taxes, etc. Until they get caught.
So, of course, from a philosophical point of view, no one owns anything. On the other hand, either the king owns everything, or whoever put their money on it.
A sly question, to put it mildly.
From the series:
A person doesn't need things, a person needs the functions of things.
The money doesn't belong to anyone, it's all in temporary use.
It is not ethical to raise this issue in a country where there was no private ownership of the means of production. What this led to is known.
Private property is something that you can alienate.
But private property is primarily a responsibility.
This is something that we have difficulty instilling.
The inviolability of private property rights is the foundation of democracy.
Confucius advised: “Determine the meaning of words, and you will save the world from half of its troubles.”
Private property is what is legally assigned to a person, what he has the right to dispose of under the current law (sell, give, bequeath, throw away…). If you want to call something else private property, then, of course, you can come up with a definition in which private property does not exist. But I'm not interested in such verbal balancing.
Poorly asked question. Therefore, there can only be a vague answer to it.
In reality, that is, objectively, not in the consciousness of a person, there is nothing invented by people at all, in this sense, property also does not exist, it is only thought of as a legal entity, as friendship, etc.
Exactly. I also came up with this idea at one point, on my own, without any chewing of this thought from outside.
There is no exclusive right of ownership in nature. Just someone says “this is mine” and it is his, while no one tries to challenge this thesis.
It is very easy to make sure that this concept is correct, take an iPhone, iPod, etc. chic, and go for a night walk with them in non-prosperous areas. There you can easily explain that your temporary ownership of these devices has come to an end.
Interestingly, the right of ownership will most likely not be taken away from you, because this formality is unnecessary for real boys, they are only interested in the ability to use and dispose of it)
Or another example: Yeltsin, who was ousted from power in 1993, did not have any rights. That didn't stop him from shooting the legitimate Supreme Soviet with tanks, seizing the Ostankino Tower and pissing everyone's ears that he was the legitimate president. No one really disputed that Yeltsin ruled.
Okay, Tyler, okay. In fact, everything belongs to Krsna, and we are just ungrateful tenants who have forgotten the nature of things.�
Harekrishnaharekrishnakrishnakrishnahareharehareamahareamaramaramaharehare
No, purely from a psychological point of view, and in the most utilitarian sense of psychology. At the earliest stage of personality development, identification begins and things become an important object, through “give” and”mine”. Attempts to create a communist ubermensch devoid of this part of consciousness have not yet led to success. The longest experiment conducted on the territory of the Russian Empire from 1917 to 1991, on the contrary, led to the appearance of a paradoxical homo-soveticus, neurotically obsessed with materialism. Which, even in the absence of propaganda and deficits, has degenerated into irrational status consumption, dictating not only social relations but even politics among the descendants of the participants in the experiment.