<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Escher demonstrated that an equal number (aleph null) of angels
AND devils can dance on the head of a hyperbolic pinhead... <br>
</p>
<p><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Levine3/publication/228653116/figure/fig1/AS:301840328609794@1448975750468/Circle-Limit-IV-by-MC-Escher-A-1960-print-in-which-the-spaces-between-white-angels.png"
alt="" width="357" height="360"></p>
<p>I only argue the point because I personally do not have as clear
of a distinction as I would like to. I merely intuit that there
is a qualitative difference between "owning" that which I can
husband or steward personally and that which requires some kind of
threat or coercion to maintain control of? <br>
</p>
<p>Ultimately in a utopian communist fantasy scene, if I killed a
lizard this morning and you are hungry, it is my
duty/role/obligation to give it to you, or at least share it...
and if I've already gobbled it down greedily and your need is
significant, it is uncumbent on me to barf up a portion like a
mother coyote does for her young. And if I have more lizard than
I can eat before it spoils (though I hear they can be quite good
if properly fermented in a damp hole in a tree) then it is even
more important that I share it?</p>
<p>can you help me separate "control" from "stewardship"?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/14/19 5:00 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a3bcfa8d-b4c8-344b-130f-9af3bc704b07@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In response to both MGD and SAS:
OK. But again we're arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin, right? It's like distinguishing between objects and processes, nodes and edges. Property implies a kind of control and vice versa. So, whether you "own a means" or "control a thing" is irrelevant. It's the *privacy* that's the distinguisher, not the thing that is private.
This goes back to concepts of "closure", I suppose. If you kill just enough lizards to feed your family for a month, that's one thing. But if you somehow finagle your way into preventing others from having enough lizards to feed their family for that month, that's another thing. So, the closure of privacy or, better yet, the closure of control is the leveragable distinction.
On 11/14/19 3:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">HR often departments act as if the feature space for skills can be represented as a binary vector associated with a given candidate. That resource is a thing they try to acquire and will get rid of when they no longer need it. A rich enough company might even hold on to such resources just so that another company couldn't get it. They aren't as bald-faced as calling their employees property though. They don't hesitate to use terms like "intellectual property", however.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
On 11/14/19 3:50 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think this is a fair question. Perhaps the dead lizard I just killed
in the dilly bag around my waist is *mine all mine* but the throwing
stick I used to kill it, which gives me the ability to kill lizards
before anyone else in my tribe can is perhaps the pragmatic
difference? Fundamentally it has to do with whether "the group" can
"afford" for some members to have/take significant advantage over "the
commons" whether that be by technological leverage (throwing stick,
plantation, factory, or national railway system) or force of law (laws
and law enforcement contrived to protect "private property" vs "citizens
health and well being") or more organic aspects (being bigger, faster,
more aggressive than others).
I use these extreme examples, only for illustration. I'm not
advocating the kind of handicapping parodied in Vonnegut's Harrison
Bergeron, just suggesting that maintaining an extended phenotype through
the principle of private ownership isn't (qualitatively) the same as A)
literal hoarding (gathering all the lizards up in a region) or B)
potential hoarding (establishing and maintaining the ability to gather
them so much more efficiently than others so as to effectively hoard them).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>