Poverty soars among young families in US

[GenSeneca]

Our life shouldn't be a "market driven" life. It should be a "people driven" life, with the government AND the market bolstering the good of the people, NOT the other way around.

Who decides what constitutes the "good of the people"?

 

[Dr.Who]

I absolutely agree that a man who picks an apple from a tree in a commons has the right to eat that apple. However, does he have the right to pick all the apples, then let them rot,

Answered. Though I am aware of no law that punishes people for letting thei own property go to waste. Morally it is wrong.

or oblige other people to pay for them? What gave that first man who decided to "claim" that apple tree as HIS PROPERTY the right to do that? Who GAVE him the right of ownership on that tree?

When he picked the apple it became his to eat or to sell or to make into a baked apple face as he chooses. That is what it means to own something. he did not oblige anyone to pay for it. That is a mutually agreed upon transaction. In this example we already started with the idea that the tree was commons. now if he did own the tree, because with his labor he planted and took care of it then ownership of the tree would be his.

Where did that right come from? It is a part of natural law and forms a basis of our constitution which affirms that right to own property.

If that tree is the only one in the village, does he have the right to suddenly take away the tree that belonged to the WHOLE village and put a claim of ownership on it?

If he could pick the apple from the commons and it became his then we would apply the same rules. The rule that applies here is whether or not he would make use of the tree rather than wasting it or just acting to harm others. If he were in danger of freezing to death and all he could find to warm his home were that tree then he could freely use it as long as he did not stop others from doing the same by, say, blocking their path to the tree. If on the other hand the tree were not commons but were in fact owned by the village then he could not violate their right to their property.

The fact is that "private property" is a fairly NEW context in the history of men.

More facts that are bogus. If you believe in the Bible you will see that cain and abel had private property. If not then show us that early man did not.

Although I am all for individual property rights,

That does not seem to be entirely true. "Scratch a progressive and you will find a communist"

I believe it has gone to such extreme that it is jeopardizing our society. Patents, copyrights, trademarks have not only limited EVERYONE's ability to enjoy many products, but have gone so far as forcing some products that are NECESSARY for life (i.e., some pharmaceutical products) into a market that are so over priced that they are no longer available to all. And please do not tell me that all these products take money to be developped, and that those patents and trademarks are protecting the investment made by the developer. . . MANY of those pharmaceuticals advances were developped in PUBLICLY SPONSORED labs, as in University paid for by OUR tax money, and then awarded (for a fee) by the university to a pharmaceutical corporation, who can charge whatever "the market can bear" (often a lot more, actually!) for an extended period of time, with no "generic" allowed!

Show me that those abuses are not in fact the result of the gov failing to create equal opportunity.

If an big corporation (let's say, IBM, has an employee who, even in his spare time, comes up with a new code, or a new product, IBM will have the right to claim that new discovery as its own, and will sue the person if the person leaves IBM and try to market that product on his own. . .and they will win, because what was developed during the period of employment (or directly after) by an employee, "RIGHTFULLY" belongs to the employer!

I think you misunderstand the rules. If he develops the idea while on company time or as a result of his employment they do indeed own the product. But if he develops it independently then he owns it.

However, if you look at it in a "public sector" like a government sponsored university research lab, although the cost of the research and development has been covered by tax payers money all along, the tax payers are not given any rights to that new products which can be sold for profits by the university, without any money coming back to the tax payers. . .since they will have to pay the "market price" for that product, even if their life depends on it!

Clearly the gov is at fault for giving one person money to develop products rather than giving all people equal opportunity to develop products. Then the gov made matters worse by treating the fruits of money owned by taxpayers as if it belonged to the university. This is an abuse of the concept of private property not the fault of the existence of private property.

You can blame the government for that dichotomy in handling the "private" and the "public" sectors. But the fact is that there are so many lobbyists, and politicians bought by big corporations, that, instead of "regulating" this kind of transactions to protect the rights (basically the ownership) by the commons (all the people), we are moving towards even LESS regulations, and the pendulum is leaning even FURTHER to right of ownership of a FEW, compare to the right of the community to keep ownership for the common good.

I would blame the gov because they were the ones who failed to understand private property. I would blame those who bribed but without forgetting those who took the bribes.

So, little by little, more of our "commons" or communal rights fade away. AIR is one of the most basic "commons." No one can deny that air was not "invented" by someone, that EVERYONE has the right to breathe, that it is a BASIC necessity of life. . .a basic right, without which, all other rights are moot, since we stop to live.

I have not been using the word commons at al to describe communal rights. I have not read the book so you are probably right about the defintion.

I would say no such thing as communal rights exist excepting if when people form a gov they create communal rights. Prior to the formation of that gov what existed was a natural world with natural laws.

Air is a part of nature and we all have natural rights to claim it, i.e. breath it. The apples on a tree do not belong to a whole village unless that village works to make it property.

WE are our government, no matter how you want to look at it. And the REAL problem with the government is not that it is too big, it is that it is no longer control by the people, but by big corporations.

If it is controlled by corps then we are not the gov.

But if it is controlled by corps then we should by no means give those corps any more power by expanding gov.

What we should do is revolt.

I was talking about the "three legged stool" (Government, Market, and commons), these three "forces" should be equal, and balanced to work at the advantage of all. Instead, we are allowing the "market" to oversee, to change, to manipulate both the government and the commons.

In a free or well regulated market it would be balanced. The imbalance is the fault of the rule of law and equality of law not be properly exercised by the very gov that you want to see have even more power.

Our life shouldn't be a "market driven" life. It should be a "people driven" life, with the government AND the market bolstering the good of the people, NOT the other way around.

markets are run by people. A market driven life would be a people driven life.

Of course govs are run by people too.

The problem is that we need a system to counter the natural evil that is in people. The best system to do this is well regulated capitalism under a constitutinoal gov. Right now our gov is ingoring the const daily.

 

[Openmind]

Answered. Though I am aware of no law that punishes people for letting thei own property go to waste. Morally it is wrong.


When he picked the apple it became his to eat or to sell or to make into a baked apple face as he chooses. That is what it means to own something. he did not oblige anyone to pay for it. That is a mutually agreed upon transaction. In this example we already started with the idea that the tree was commons. now if he did own the tree, because with his labor he planted and took care of it then ownership of the tree would be his.

Where did that right come from? It is a part of natural law and forms a basis of our constitution which affirms that right to own property.


If he could pick the apple from the commons and it became his then we would apply the same rules. The rule that applies here is whether or not he would make use of the tree rather than wasting it or just acting to harm others. If he were in danger of freezing to death and all he could find to warm his home were that tree then he could freely use it as long as he did not stop others from doing the same by, say, blocking their path to the tree. If on the other hand the tree were not commons but were in fact owned by the village then he could not violate their right to their property.



More facts that are bogus. If you believe in the Bible you will see that cain and abel had private property. If not then show us that early man did not.




That does not seem to be entirely true. "Scratch a progressive and you will find a communist"



Show me that those abuses are not in fact the result of the gov failing to create equal opportunity.






I think you misunderstand the rules. If he develops the idea while on company time or as a result of his employment they do indeed own the product. But if he develops it independently then he owns it.



Clearly the gov is at fault for giving one person money to develop products rather than giving all people equal opportunity to develop products. Then the gov made matters worse by treating the fruits of money owned by taxpayers as if it belonged to the university. This is an abuse of the concept of private property not the fault of the existence of private property.


I would blame the gov because they were the ones who failed to understand private property. I would blame those who bribed but without forgetting those who took the bribes.



I have not been using the word commons at al to describe communal rights. I have not read the book so you are probably right about the defintion.

I would say no such thing as communal rights exist excepting if when people form a gov they create communal rights. Prior to the formation of that gov what existed was a natural world with natural laws.

Air is a part of nature and we all have natural rights to claim it, i.e. breath it. The apples on a tree do not belong to a whole village unless that village works to make it property.



If it is controlled by corps then we are not the gov.

But if it is controlled by corps then we should by no means give those corps any more power by expanding gov.

What we should do is revolt.



In a free or well regulated market it would be balanced. The imbalance is the fault of the rule of law and equality of law not be properly exercised by the very gov that you want to see have even more power.




markets are run by people. A market driven life would be a people driven life.

Of course govs are run by people too.

The problem is that we need a system to counter the natural evil that is in people. The best system to do this is well regulated capitalism under a constitutinoal gov. Right now our gov is ingoring the const daily.

We obviously can't come to an understanding on this issue. And, since I am just beginning to understand and research this concept of "commons," I prefer not to make statements that may not be factual, or may be misleading, because of my limited knowledge.

However, although I agree that a man can do what he wishes with the apple he picked from a tree that is in the commons, he should not have the right to suddenly make that tree his private property and oblige others to BUY an apple from that tree if they want to pick it themselves.

The market is not a bad think in itself. It is even a very useful TOOL to better man's life. . .if it is used with that goal. However, what we are experiencing now is a "run away market," that wants no limit to greed, no regulations to limit the POWER of the market, and that, by its demands, excludes too many people from sharing in what used to be the commons, because the market has made some of those commons so expensive, so limited to "private ownership," that many people are left outside of that "tool."

 

[Dr.Who]

We obviously can't come to an understanding on this issue. And, since I am just beginning to understand and research this concept of "commons," I prefer not to make statements that may not be factual, or may be misleading, because of my limited knowledge.

Could be. Perhaps in the future you could post a definitio of commons too since that word is not defined on the net.

However, although I agree that a man can do what he wishes with the apple he picked from a tree that is in the commons, he should not have the right to suddenly make that tree his private property and oblige others to BUY an apple from that tree if they want to pick it themselves.

We have rules for taking things from nature that previously belonged to no one. That man should follow those rules. Corporations should follow the same rules. And governments are really just a kind of corporation with certain powers that other corporations don't have. It too should not just be able to claim ownership to things unowned in nature.

But if a man did own an apple tree (and I assume you agree that men can own apple trees) then if someone wants to pay to pick apples and he wants to get paid to let people pick apples then why not? Orchards around me do it all the time.

The market is not a bad think in itself. It is even a very useful TOOL to better man's life. . .if it is used with that goal. However, what we are experiencing now is a "run away market," that wants no limit to greed, no regulations to limit the POWER of the market, and that, by its demands, excludes too many people from sharing in what used to be the commons, because the market has made some of those commons so expensive, so limited to "private ownership," that many people are left outside of that "tool."

[/QUOTE]

I think someone has been giving you koolaid.

The market does not want no regulations. That is factually untrue.

Wanting to make trades or profits is not always greed.

And all the examples of people blocked out of the market of things unowned are the result of government policies.