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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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."

[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.

[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.