If there was no possession.

[MarkL444]

If there was no such thing as possession, meaning of course there is no money, in what ways would this world as a whole be worse off?

[maurile]

Let's say you spend all winter growing corn and then everyone else eats it all because it didn't belong to you (since there's no such thing as property rights).

You probably won't spend all next winter growing corn, will you?

Neither will anyone else.

[MarkL444]

Surely there has to have been a society at some point that didn't have possession but functioned successfully.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely there has to have been a society at some point that didn't have possession but functioned successfully.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Property rights were recognized (not legally, but morally) even before our ancestors were fully human. Every human society has had the concepts of "mine" and "his" and "ours," etc.

[jason1990]

Just an interesting tangent: apparently, there is no word for "to have" in Hindi. Instead of saying, for example, "I have a pencil," one says, "A pencil is in my vicinity."

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely there has to have been a society at some point that didn't have possession but functioned successfully.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Property rights were recognized (not legally, but morally) even before our ancestors were fully human. Every human society has had the concepts of "mine" and "his" and "ours," etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some hunter-gatherers are still around which do not have personal property rights. They have a concept of a "tribe's" possessions however which still provides incentive. I'm not positive, but I wouldn't rule out the lack of property rights entirely in human history.

-SmileyEH

[BZ_Zorro]

On a lesser scale, there is a reason why free market economies are far more successful than state economies. Much of it has to do with personal incentive and the energy that creates.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some hunter-gatherers are still around which do not have personal property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try taking their meat from them. They'll beat you up. But if the meat belongs to you because you brought it there, they are much less likely to beat you up and take it (or at least, if they do steal it from you, they will realize they are being bullies, unlike the first case).

Jane Goodall once saw the alpha male beg for hours for a low ranking chimp to share some meat with him, and eventually give up and go away.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
On a lesser scale, there is a reason why free market economies are far more successful than state economies. Much of it has to do with personal incentive and the energy that creates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't incentive strongly related to greed which wouldn't (or would it) be possible w/o possession.

[BZ_Zorro]

Greed is always there. The only difference between possession and no possession is the amount of time something is in your control.

Possession guarantees it forever, provides security, and enables tasks to be completed as you know what tools you have to work with and how many resources are allocated to you. No possession guarantees resources/goods until someone else wants it. This goes for everything from a bar of soap, food in fridge, to a car or a house.

So greed will still be there. You'll just get people getting more than their fair share without doing anything for it, fighting over who will have something for a certain period of time, and lack of respect for property (as there is no ownership). In addition there will be no real incentive to do anything at all.

[A_C_Slater]

Dude...like, why can't we just live in world where, like, there's no money and people just, like, help each other out? Like, one person could make shoes, and like, another could make food, and like, some other guy could, like, chop wood for the fire. And the women just, like, take care of the babies and give the guy's who are chopping wood and getting food head and stuff.

[MarkL444]

I like all of these points you guys have made. I've just been thinking quite a bit lately about the necessities of money and took it a step further to possession. I do agree that it is essential.

Now to take this the predictable step forward...

What if there was possession, but no money?

Aren't most if not all of the problems in the world almost directly related to money?

I tend to think the outrageous distribution of wealth is one of the most unnecissary problems that exists- but without money one could only accumulate so much wealth. I guess they could have a ton of land, somewhat besides the point.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude...like, why can't we just live in world where, like, there's no money and people just, like, help each other out? Like, one person could make shoes, and like, another could make food, and like, some other guy could, like, chop wood for the fire. And the women just, like, take care of the babies and give the guy's who are chopping wood and getting food head and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why this is funny.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude...like, why can't we just live in world where, like, there's no money and people just, like, help each other out? Like, one person could make shoes, and like, another could make food, and like, some other guy could, like, chop wood for the fire. And the women just, like, take care of the babies and give the guy's who are chopping wood and getting food head and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why this is funny.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just an elaborate way of calling you a hippie.

Detroit what.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
What if there was possession, but no money?

[/ QUOTE ]
It'd be pretty much the same as it is now, except less convenient. People would stockpile gems and precious metals instead of greenish portraits of Benjamin Franklin.

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't most if not all of the problems in the world almost directly related to money?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, most if not all of the problems in the world are directly related to sex. But that doesn't mean we'd be better off without it.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, most if not all of the problems in the world are directly related to sex. But that doesn't mean we'd be better off without it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this a little? I find it very interesting but don't fully understand.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, most if not all of the problems in the world are directly related to sex. But that doesn't mean we'd be better off without it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this a little? I find it very interesting but don't fully understand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was partially joking. But think back to the stupidest thing you ever did. Chances are it was for a girl. Girls cause all kinds of problems. Especially the pretty ones.

[snowden719]

without money, it seems as if a proper distibution of goods would be very difficult, could you imagine bringing cattle or crops everywhere you went whenever you needed to get something you didn;t have?

[spoohunter]

I think most of humanities problems may be caused (possibly) by greed, but certainly not by money.

[tek]

We could, but some commodities are too heavy too move often.
That's why money was invented. It's easier to carry...

[tek]

The Pilgrims experimented with communism when they first landed. However, some guys got lazy and didn't do anything. That was the end of that /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ihardlyknowher]

Resources would be wasted because no one would have the proper incentive to put them to a more efficient use.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely there has to have been a society at some point that didn't have possession but functioned successfully.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Property rights were recognized (not legally, but morally) even before our ancestors were fully human. Every human society has had the concepts of "mine" and "his" and "ours," etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some hunter-gatherers are still around which do not have personal property rights. They have a concept of a "tribe's" possessions however which still provides incentive. I'm not positive, but I wouldn't rule out the lack of property rights entirely in human history.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be more or less correct... the best evidence that a sociopolitical system is firmly entrenched is when its average person believes that its fundamental characteristics are natural and always have been. The idea that exclusive property rights predate language itself is ridiculous (and also entirely unprovable... however there exist societies which do disprove it).

NT

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't most if not all of the problems in the world almost directly related to money?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're related to disputes over land, goods, or ideas, money being the fundamental trading unit for many of these items. You don't see Arabs blowing themselves up in train stations over wads of cash. Eliminating money would merely cause us to go back to fighting over raw goods and other items more explicitly.

NT

[Girchuck]

Property rights have to be enforced by violence or threat of violence.
What if there was no such thing as violence?
For example, you kill someone, you drop dead on the spot, you hurt someone you feel the same pain. What would happen to possessions and property rights if violence did not exist?

[TomCollins]

Even animals mark their territory, defend their young, etc... Although they do not hvae property rights, they at least have de facto property rights. Of course, those rights are often determined by the strongest.