Skip to main content

View Diary: The Tragedy of Private Ownership (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From the beginning, despite the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, blue in NC

    claimed priority of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Constitution placed property rights over human rights.  Had to.  Otherwise, the designation of humans who had been purchased like property could not have been classified as 3/5 of a natural person.

    In a sense, property rights or the rights of ownership of things was a sop to compensate for the fact that the human rights of many people (women, children, slaves, natives, recent immigrants) were routinely disrespected.  So, what the theory behind the "tragedy of the commons" was was a justification for an injustice.  Also, it provided cover for the reality that the exclusive use of property made it possible to segregate and restrict certain populations by conditioning their access to the resources required for sustenance on their subservience to authority.  

    The meaning of "no free lunch" is simply that persons who don't satisfy some other person's directives and "earn" their keep, are to expire.  Economist came up with a similar dictum in the assertions that

    "man prefers leisure and must be made to work"

    That the threat of starvation, which depriving humans of access to natural resources insures, is the mechanism to "make" man work doesn't have to be stated.  And it wouldn't be PC to do so.  But, that's how it works.

    "political economy," a more modern definition of the economist's area of investigation actually refers to the use of exchange and trade to subjugate and control human populations--to exert power by regulating who gets fed and who starves.  We can see examples of it in the sanctions applied to Iraq and Iran in the effort to gain compliance with Western demands.

    "man prefers leisure and must be made to work" has the added advantage of containing a moral imperative since "work" is the sentence handed down by the Creator in consequence of the original sin.  So, that puts human coercion on the side of God's will.  Neat, don't you think?

    The conservative mind relies mainly on what is plain to see.

    by hannah on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:07:20 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site