Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
santiago:
The object in question is proper to some and not to others -- this is the relationship that rights to property establishes.  

I give you that property rights necessarily involve relationships between people individually and collectively, but the legal protocols set out the relationship between object and person, and I am surprised you think otherwise.

In fact, when you say "proper to some" you are recognising that a relationship exists.

santiago:

But more generally still, is it really possible to bring ALL the stakeholders inside the corporate box?  Even in a film, for example, the collective can be sued or otherwise attacked by an outside party who feels materially offended by the film.

The logical conclusion is for the viewer to join a "viewers club", and contract out of such nonsense by participating on the basis of alternative dispute resolution. But as it was a ten minute black and white comedy, we never got that far.

My point is that there is no reason why a consensual protocol cannot transcend all others.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 06:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't agree on the property question.  Laws and other social norms pertain to human interactions and do not define a relationship with an object but rather a relationship between people regarding exclusive use of an object.  Without such a law or social norm, people could still use the object like it is, but just not exclusively, so it's the social relationship that is specified by the social rules not the relationship between person and thing.

On your main point, I think that it could be entirely possible that a consensual protocol like you are describing could transcend all others, but in order to do that it would have to provide benefits to a certain class or classes of powerful people who have an interest in seeing it happen, just like every other historical change in the way society has been ordered.  That's the part I don't quite see yet, although even without that, I do see the possibility of it becoming an additional organizational tool in the capitalist toolbox such as limited liability and traditional cooperatives.

A key benefit of limited liability, however, is that there are still lots of reasons for people to want to be excluded from risks but still participate in a collective enterprise, including many non-economic reasons, which means that it still might be more efficient do so even if there is an ongoing externality problem, which is what your system goes a long way toward solving.

by santiago on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 11:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago:
Laws and other social norms pertain to human interactions and do not define a relationship with an object but rather a relationship between people regarding exclusive use of an object.

I think my only difference with you is semantic.

For me, a protocol defining a relationship with an object and a protocol defining a relationship between people regarding exclusive use of an object both necessarily include reference to both the subject individual(s) and the objects(s).

ie

<subject><relationship><object>

And it is the potential of consensual protocols for defining the property relationship that interests me.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 24th, 2009 at 01:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Manufactured outrage

by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
1 comment

DUP decline continues

by Frank Schnittger - Aug 29
19 comments

The American Dream

by Oui - Aug 22
29 comments

Islamic State Khorasan Province

by Oui - Aug 24
84 comments

Occasional Series