Mountain climber finds treasure chest on glacier

[Kramodlog]

Exactly, everything is relative and rules are arbitrary, made by the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.

 

[MarkB]

Deleted - got a little too personal

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Exactly, everything is relative and rules are arbitrary, made by the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.

If one cannot own possession and be secure in his ownership thereof within his society, he can never elevate himself above a state of nature.

The laws of ownership benefit the wealthy, there is no doubt, but they also benefit those who would no longer be poor.*

In fact, the societally recognized and legally defended ability- beyond the personal use of force- to own things beyond what you can physically carry is one thing that protects the poor from having their meager assets being confiscated at will by those with more power.






* such as my family: I was born into a house smaller than 500sq ft, with no TV, no washer or dryer, to parents with no car. My folks today are in the top 2%. You can't improve your status in life like that without the ability to own property.

 

[Kramodlog]

If one cannot own possession and be secure in his ownership thereof within his society, he can never elevate himself above a state of nature.

Is that an cosmic law or another arbitrary one?

Just take open source. Does it prevent "elevation"? How about the bow or the wheel? Who invented those and have intellectual property rights? Did it prevent him or her from "elevating" him/herself?

The laws of ownership benefit the wealthy, there is no doubt, but they also benefit those who would no longer be poor.*

In fact, the societally recognized and legally defended ability- beyond the personal use of force- to own things beyond what you can physically carry is one thing that protects the poor from having their meager assets being confiscated at will by those with more power.

That is just a anglo-saxon take on propriety and wealth. Things are different in a hunter-gatherer society or with a more collectivitst take on propriety.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is that an cosmic law or another arbitrary one?

You keep using that word, but I don't think you're using it properly. There is a definite, logical reason behind laws that allow and protect property rights, borne out in hundreds of years of economic data.

Just take open source. Does it prevent "elevation"? How about the bow or the wheel? Who invented those and have intellectual property rights? Did it prevent him or her from "elevating" him/herself?

Nothing in societal properly rights laws prevents one from discounting, sharing or even giving away property or sources of wealth.

That is just a anglo-saxon take on propriety and wealth. Things are different in a hunter-gatherer society or with a more collectivitst take on propriety.

Not all that different, really.

Even in basic tribal societies, there are concepts of ownership. For example, while many Native American tribes had no rules about owning land as an individual, they did have a concept of tribal ownership of territory, as well rules concerning personal property and theft thereof.

Inuit near the Bering Strait have a word, "kunlangeta" which refers to someone who has comitted any of a great number of offenses- including murder and theft. Kuniangeta were supposedly tolerated until they could be shoved into the icy waters to drown. And you don't get a punishment for "theft" unless there is a corresponding concept of ownership.

Despite not having words that directly correspond to "ownership" in English, the Maori legal system clearly noted hatsuch a concept existed: custom generally accorded the owner of property the right to punish the thief with violence and even death, though non-violent punishments were also permitted. Beyond that, the Maori custom was that such goods as a person owned passed to his descendants.

 

[frankthedm]

For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth.

Yeah. Lots of laws are set up to prevent easy transfer of large quantities of valuables.

OOOoooh, this story is even better, the plane those rocks came off of might have been part of an assassination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homi_J._Bhabha#Assassination_conspiracy

 

[Kramodlog]

You keep using that word, but I don't think you're using it properly. There is a definite, logical reason behind laws that allow and protect property rights, borne out in hundreds of years of economic data.

Not really. It is a tradition, something that was cultural. With modernity, it has been expended to other cultures, ideas and even the genes in your body.

Nothing in societal properly rights laws prevents one from discounting, sharing or even giving away property or sources of wealth.

If someone would invent the bow or wheel today, they would be patented. Propriety prevents dissimination. Thus elevation, according to you. Cause I do not believe in that BS.

Even in basic tribal societies, there are concepts of ownership.

So do, some don't. Let us not be ethnocentric here. Propriety is not a universal concept. Sorry.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If someone would invent the bow or wheel today, they would be patented. Propriety prevents dissimination. Thus elevation, according to you. Cause I do not believe in that BS.

Property rights do not prevent dissemination, they prevent unauthorized dissemination. If someone invented the bow or wheel today, nothing in the law would prevent them from letting someone else make those. Look at Mercedes Benz: they allowed the free use of hundreds of their automobile safety patents, including major ones like 3 point harnesses, ABS, crumple zone technology and (as I recall) the airbag.

Economic fact: Since property rights in land were expanded beyond royalty, a gater percentage of people have been able to increase their wealth.

Economic fact: as property rights have expanded beyond the rule of "self-help", the pace of technological advance has increased, as well as the acceleration of that increase.

Those combined factors are essentially the ONLY reasons we have a middle class at all. When Russia finally did away with its version of the feudal society to embrace a more capitalist structure (IOW, Pre-Marx & Lenin)- their economy boomed. Modern China's economy is growing in large measure due to adopting more capitalist practices AND more vigorously protecting the property rights of its own citizens (though not the rights of foreigners).

Are concepts of property rights universally held? No. But if you look at the societies that continue to innovate versus those that stagnate*, you'll find nearly every one protects property rights vigorously.







* or those that stave of stagnation by ignoring the property rights of others.

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure how any of that makes a difference to the present case. If anything, it makes it less likely that the original owners will claim them, and thus more likely that they'll revert to the person who found them.

I think one of the key challenges that MarkB is alluding to, is if you show up with a box of rocks to sell, people ask questions.

Because if you're not already known as being in the business, it is assumed that you stole them.

Which means questions get asked.

"They fell off a truck", or "My aunt willed them to me" are such common claims, that they're not believed.

 

[Kramodlog]

Property rights do not prevent dissemination, they prevent unauthorized dissemination.

Pretty much the same thing. It prevents advancement of humanity because a few need to make some profit.