Jane's Posts

Jan 29 2004 1:00 am

I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
Vicki

Ditto, without the exclamation point. Who came after, though? I was surprised that Kerry matched me better than Dean.

Bush came in last for me - 4%.

jane

Jan 29 2004 1:08 am

BTW, there is something I just don't like about Kerry too, but I can't put my finger on it.

He's an asshole. Still, I'm not looking for someone to hang out with. I'm looking for someone to run the country.

jane

Jan 29 2004 6:15 pm

Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?

Well, to be honest, I think they're probably all assholes.

But do I think it's a prerequisite for good presidenthood? No, I do not. Because Lee's not an asshole, and I've got her earmarked for the job. After I die, of course.

jane

Feb 03 2004 1:08 am

We don't need a bunch of socialists

Now see, that's exactly what I think we need.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:56 am

Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy and who we vote for at the very least.

My life is defined by choosing food lately. Have I mentioned this here? The supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever having crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food shopping. 7-11 is doing great.

But Lee, my precious child, is a vegetarian, and they don't carry tofu. Dairy products have to come from animals treated humanely. Not a problem, we can get organic cagefree eggs at the farmers market on the other side of town on Sundays. Unfortunately, they don't carry organic cheese and milk, which I get at the food coop on the other other side of town.

Then there's the low carb diet and the braces to factor in. Food has lost all its convenience. There is nowhere to dash out and grab something anymore. There's nothing to keep around the house to snack on.

jane

Feb 04 2004 11:55 am

The Wegman's workers are extremely happy with their jobs and working conditions,

You know that's crap. Think about it. It is not possible that all Wegman workers are extremely happy with their jobs and working conditions. That's just now how things work in this world. So bring it back to the real world. You and I both know that there are some people in that store who want a union and some who don't.

So what we have is a unionization dispute. I'm generally pro-union in such disputes because I believe collective bargaining is necessary to balance the power between the worker and the capitalist in negotiation. Norma Rae can't get the deal out of the company that all the workers in the factory together can. Besides, I want the store to be union for my shopping convenience. So I'm not crossing that line.

There could be a situation in which I would cross a picket line. Say if the union was on strike to oppose AA or women being admitted or something. I'd prefer that didn't happen, though.

jane "you won't get me, I'm part of the union" lawrence

Feb 04 2004 1:32 pm

No, they don't.

Then I'm not sure what significance you attach to them not striking.

And they are not expressing any dissatisfaction with their working conditions.

I'm quite sure the organizers have been around, but no one's interested.

This is what makes me crazy. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction, and of course people are interested. How can you make these blanket statements? This is so not like you.

I'm not saying Wegman's should be unionized, or even that things would be better if they were. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among employees on this issue.

You can cross a line. You can shop at non-union stores. Hell, you can shop at WalMart. It's your decision, based on your values. Just don't kid yourself that you're doing what the employees want. You're doing what some of the employees, maybe most of the employees, want. People who don't cross the line are doing what some of the employees want, too.

Here's a letter dated Feb. 23, 2003 from teamsters.org (can't get more union than that):

I read this twice. I don't get your point. The Teamsters' point seems to be that some Wegman's employees *are* unionized.

jane

Feb 04 2004 7:35 pm

This is so not like you.

Because when the majority of employees are happy, I'm comfortable with saying that Wegmans employees are happy.

Right, that's what is not like you. Usually, you are precise, you take care to say what you mean. If you mean "most workers" you say "most workers." You don't say "the workers."

And complain there, too, I'll bet.

Are you implying that if a person is dissatisfied with something about working at Wegman's then they will be dissatisfied whereever they go?

Why would they want me to shop at a different chain?

If people only shop at union chains, all chains will be union. Besides, if companies fear a union they generally improve working conditions and benefits.

jane

Feb 05 2004 11:15 am

They'd be apathetic, they'd be too busy, they wouldn't care one way or the other. People want unions when their working conditions are unsatisfactory. Other than that, they want to go to work, go home, and go on with their lives.

People vary on this like they vary on other political involvement. Some are active, informed, and involved, others are apathetic. It really bugs me that you are using this broad brush.

The workers at Wegman's

Again, there is nothing you can accurately or fairly say about "the workers at Wegman's." You saying that the workers at Wegman's don't want a union makes as much sense as you saying that they don't want the war in Iraq or they don't want gay marriage or they don't want NAFTA

The Wegman's employees are not picketing.

But Wegman's employees are not in the union. Why would they be picketing? You're talking about union workers picketing a non-union shop. They want the shop unionized. I'll support that.

We never unionized at RadiSys either. Does that mean that there were some employees who were harboring secret pro-union desires,

Of course. There are mes and geris everywhere. Possibly not at your Thanksgiving table, but other than that, you can count on different opinions on this issue just like any other. I don't even understand why we're arguing about this. It's in the "stuff we all know" category for me.

or couldn't it just mean that there was no reason to?

There are always reasons for unionization. Collective bargaining can be a powerful tool. I think probably no union was interested in them. Too many different kinds of workers, specialized fields, etc.

jane

Feb 05 2004 11:20 am

And so the workers get improved working conditions adn benefits, without union dues.

Right.

I'm not seeing the downside.

The workers don't have the other benefits that come with unionization. They don't have a shop steward to file grievances with or tell the store that union members won't work with the dicey meat slicer, etc.

The union doesn't get the dues. Without dues, the union will be less powerful, have fewer resources to sponsor legislation, negotiate with companies, etc.

jane

Feb 06 2004 11:49 am

If the majority of the actual employees of the company have considered and rejected unionization, why on earth would you support the picketers?

Because I support unions as a structural element in our economy. I don't care so much about the wishes of specific workers in specific stores. I believe that Wegman's management is fair to its employees; they can be, they're privately held. I want the grocery store industry unionized. I want workers at WalMart, who don't work for nice guys like the Wegman's, to have some clout in negotiation.

jane

Feb 08 2004 3:21 pm

I once used to think that capitalism was bad for the environment, because most of the costs are 'externalities' -- they don't feed into the company's cost structure.

But time after time, it's apparent that socialist governments have been at least equally bad for the environment. In China. In India (which is partly socialist, or used to be). In Russia.

Yabbut. Socialist governments being bad for the environment doesn't undermine the position that capitalism is. Capitalism is still the engine driving the global economy.

I think Geri may have a point about Americans

Okay, you know that whole fight about Wegmans workers? It applies to Americans, too. We're all over the board on everything.

jane

Feb 08 2004 4:38 pm

Not only that, a fair number of consumers don't really care either, as long as their goods are plentiful and inexpensive.

I want you to shut up. I'm not saying you should or anything. Talk away. I just don't want you to perpetuate the stereotype of the callous, materialistic American.

It's true that some people will say they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else and that they're fine with sweat shops, child labor, etc. as long as they can get more shit cheaper. What bothers me is the myth that those people are uniquely and characteristically American. It hurts my feelings when people talk about "Americans."

I'm not even disagreeing with what you said. A "fair number" could mean anything. You said "consumers" not "Americans." It's just....

Look, how about I listen to talk radio for a week and you listen to NPR?

jane

Feb 10 2004 1:27 pm

There is a limited amount of resource and it's offensive for a small percentage to consume more than the rest of the world together.

You will just have to be offended then, because it isn't going to change. As my brother puts it, " ... because we can. Who is going to stop us?"

See, but I don't want the rest of the world to think they have to blow us up because we're all assholes. Actually, I don't want it to be true, either. I don't like the idea that this country will keep consuming an inordinate share of what is available (to this generation and to those following) until someone stops us.

To be fair, this isn't an American thing. Granted most kids here grow up exposed to capitalist values. They learn that it is okay to own stuff and that it is okay for some people to own more stuff than others. But it is my impression that children in many other developed nations do too. And it doesn't mean that the entire nation is completely morally bankrupt, either. Most people I have encountered here feel a responsibility to the rest of humanity. Most people don't believe that being able to do something makes it okay.

jane

Feb 10 2004 1:33 pm

Globalization probably will actually. The American standard of living will very likely go down. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing though.

The thing is, I don't see a more equitable distribution of wealth following that. Internationally, yes, but not per capita.

jane

Feb 11 2004 11:51 am

What would be the point of working if you didn't get to keep the fruits of your labor, so to speak?

I look at my life, though. The least amount and worst quality of work is what I do for money. I kill myself in the garden because I like to see it grow. I've devoted a massive chunk of the last two decades to raising my child because her welfare is the most important thing in the world to me. I make fabulous dinners for my friends because I love to cook and feed people I love. I spend hours on ASSP every week because it helps me to wrangle problems through with other people. I could go on all day.

That is a free will thing.

It's all a free will thing, Geri. If you have two coats and I don't have one, you have to decide whether to give me one, and I have to decide whether to let you keep both.

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:22 pm

Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other people?
Lori

I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided equitably.

"Ah," you say, "but what is equitable"?

Good question. I look at what we do IRL when fairness and peace are primary values and we're dealing with primal desires and people at their least civilized. We divide the birthday cake at kids' parties equally down to the crumb. So that tells me that on the most fundamental level we think "equal" is "equal."

However, once we're past the basic need, the cake, we change our approach somewhat. The ice cream is optional and variable. We give the kids no ice cream, a little ice cream, or a lot of lot of ice cream based on their input (unless, of course, their parents are there to intervene). So surplus we distribute according to individual taste and desire.

Within limits, of course. We do not allow one or two kids to take all the ice cream. We also don't allow everyone to seize whatever ice cream she can get. That would be a disaster, because the kids would not be considering how much ice cream they actually wanted; they would be thinking about getting as much ice cream they could. The two biggest kids with the most older brothers would be sitting in one corner with a 10 gallon tub of ice cream they couldn't eat and the others would be lying around the room bruised and ice cream-less and sobbing and hurt.

That's capitalism. We dissociate individuals from their needs and their desires and replace them with acquisitiveness.

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:24 pm

Why do you think it belongs to them?

If the person works for it or acquires it in any legal way, it belongs to that person.

Now we're down to tautology, though. Why does it belong to them if they work for it and acquire it in a legal way? Why are "legal ways" legal?

We decide what belongs to whom. After a person dies, money belongs to her heirs to the extent that we agree they can keep it. When a person has earned wealth, we take it away if we don't like the way she earned it. We make these decisions and a million like them already.

If a person is starving and another person is sitting on 3 warehouses full of food, why should we as a group decide that the food belongs to the latter?

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:37 pm

You would have to be pretty tough to get it away without my consent. ;-)

But you know, I think you'd have to be tougher to keep it away from me if I were cold. See, you would already be warm. You wouldn't have that same primal need to hold on to it that I would have to get it.

jane

Feb 11 2004 4:39 pm

Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.
Anne

I'm guessing zero. I am so not googling this, though.

jane

Feb 11 2004 4:57 pm

Or they kill you to get it. I have a question!! For Jane, I think. Do you think "us" deciding who gets what keeps social order and avoids mayhem?

Did I spell mayhem right? Heather..eek

I so love you. My heart is still pledged to Rupa for the religious freedom and law conversation, though.

I think us deciding who gets to keep what *is" the social order.

If A is capable of taking things away from B, C, and D individually, and A does so, it stands to reason that B, C, and D will get together against A. Eventually. But then B and C could take all D's stuff. Or D and A could take all B and C's stuff. So allocation of resources is a fundamental hurdle of civilization.

You know, I never took a course in Anthropology. I would love a course like The Individual and Society.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:08 pm

I am so not googling this, though.

You say that, but you *know* you won't be able to help yourself.
Anne

I'm trying to WORK! For money! You're undermining the economy, you know.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:41 pm

By midnight EST at the latest

I'm actually a little touched that you think I can hold out that long.

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:02 am

Massive dilution of incentives to work and accumulate wealth?

Thing is, many of us don't work for solely, or even largely, economic motives. However, if those motives don't exist, it's difficult to motivate people -- or even one's self -- to do the hard and boring stuff that still needs doing

I just don't see it. We do housework. We change diapers. We shovel snow. We pluck our eyebrows. I just don't understand why everyone seems to believe we will only work for money.

So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a consumer.

Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think it does resolve it very well.

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:17 am

Some people do. Some people don't. Making an assumption about all people based on that, well, I'll call you on it.
Tracey

I'm sorry, Tracey, I don't want a slugfest, but how you got to making an assumption about "all people" from "geri, you might" is beyond me.

Also, I don't know why you're taking this so personally. Melissa and Geri (and sometimes Brian) have their own relationship. I don't like it when people start yelling at them to stop what works for them. Sure, they're pithy and pointed. That's their style. We don't all have to prose on forever (me, not you).

It seems to me that for some reason you came back looking for a fight. So what's the deal?

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:38 am

Well, I don't know where I'm going with this, but...

I keep thinking of the middle class being eliminated. If you have ten starving, ticked-off poor people and two rich people, would the ten overpower the two?

At some point, yes.

Or would the two spread out the wealth to keep their physical safety?

Depends on their foresight. Sometimes they do; sometimes there's a coup.

Or would they just spread it out to five as in hiring them to keep them safe? That way staying in power and yet somewhat safe. But thinking about it again, I guess the five hired would be considered middle class, right?

Right. The thing is, I never can grasp exactly why the five don't realize that it's easier to just kick the two aside and take their shit.

But, thinking about it again, if the two rich people had means to destroy the mass of poor people (nuclear weapons) they could just whittle down the mass, couldn't they?

No. They need the mass to make the shit.

I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons,

I grew up expecting nuclear war. Maybe I'm a funny age. At school we had drills and a bomb shelter in basement. SALT. Kruschev. Oh, and one of my best friends' father flew the plane that wasn't the Enola Gay. The Nagasaki one. So, I don't have a very clear grasp of anything but "days of nuclear weapons."

does majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability rule?

To be honest, I'm always a little surprised that the world is still here. I think that the knowledge that use of nuclear weapons would be globally devastating keeps things somewhat under control. Then, I listen to Dubya, as I have to several presidents before him, and I think, "this fuck is just crazy enough to think that nuclear weapons are an option." So I can never decide whether more people should have them or not.

jane

Feb 12 2004 11:35 am

They question is: should they force your neighbor not to take it?

Yes, we (the government acting in our stead) should force your neighbor not to take your second car.

(That statement presumes a stable civil society.)

You know, we/they really don't, though.

I find this fascinating. In this country people seem to believe what Geri said, that stuff belongs to whomever it belongs to. When you mention other people talking it away, virtually everyone brings up the government. Even the people who believe that government that shouldn't be messing in social programs and protecting the environment seem to support government protection of individual private property interests.

What interests me most is that many people seem to believe that the government actually does prevent other people from taking their stuff. And they don't. Theft is illegal, but it's illegal like smoking pot is. The government is not out there preventing it from happening. Remember Wendy mentioning someone taking things in her house? No one was shocked the government hadn't prevented it. No one suggested the government would get the stuff back.

Anyway, no one is forcing your neighbor not to take your car. If someone does take off with your $60K SUV, you can leave a voice mail message with the police department. They'll let you know if they pull someone over in it. In the mean time, you'd better be up to date on your insurance.

jane

Feb 13 2004 12:30 am

It could be about having money for other things besides food.
Wendy

Not if the dude walked up saying hand me some money because I'm hungry.

I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that "hungry" means "anything, and right
now."

I'm not saying Vicki's panhandler wasn't looking for money for drugs or an SUV,
but there are other reasonable explanations.

If you have a family, you're supposed to go out and get enough cash to buy
groceries so that everyone can eat. Splitting up cold fast food you've carried
around all day can't be too appetizing. And you know you're the scum of the
earth if you get a Big Mac but the kids get bologna and cheese.

And then lots of places refuse service to the panhandlers outside.

And then maybe he'd just eaten. As soon as you've eaten, you have to get out
there and start collecting for the next meal. Maybe if Vicki had offered to
come back in 4 hours, he'd have taken her up on it.

jane

Feb 13 2004 1:13 am

My theory is the world has more dirty diapers than people who would change them for sheer altruism, or because they want to.

Right. But you change your own kid's. Sometimes, you'll change other people's kids. So right there, just using mothers, you've got more than enough to change the diapers out there.

We do stuff for all kinds of reasons. Some carrot, some stick. I'm not sure it's ever possible to completely differentiate between the two. In my mind, the further you get from basic survival, the more time you spend on carrots.

So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a consumer.

Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think it does resolve it very well.

What's the alternative, though?

I don't believe that there is one optimal division of occupations. I don't think a town ever "needs" 10 nurses and 2 archeologists. Death rates might be higher with 1 nurse, but Archeology would be in great shape. Those who are passionate about conserving antiquities might choose that division.

See with capitalism, the goal is "efficiency," maximization of production. I can't really get behind that. I'm okay with 10 people happily digging in the dirt and dying younger. Or eating less. And if there's not enough food for everyone, I think it naturally occurs to people to produce more food. Archeology on an empty stomach is less appealing than it is on a full stomach. The value of food production has a new allure. Archeologists discover victory gardens.

Planned economies tried to resolve this dilemma by literally telling people what they could do -- or by only allowing 2 people to train as archaeologists, and encouraging 10 to train as nurses. That worked less well.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "less well." As you can see, "less well" might be just fine with me.

jane

Feb 13 2004 1:21 am

But you know? When my sister was in the final stages of her cancer and was largely comatose and we were with her all day, in her hospital room, the nurses kept us sane. They were kind, they were sympathetic without being mawkish, they treated my sister humanely and humanly, recognizing that she had been more than what remained at that point, and that we all remembered the alive, living Debbie. They were wonderful. They may have been disillusioned and cynical about the hospital, its management and their working conditions, but they never let it leak out on us, or on their patients. They were great, all of them, every shift, every day.

Ooh, ooh, ooh. My SIL is a nurse. She loves her job.

Just recently she was telling me how much she loved working with this terminally ill cancer patient's family. She said that she was very touched that they all came and spent time with him, and how wonderful it was to see someone surrounded by love in their last days here. They took care of him. They joked when he wanted fun humor and sat in silence when he needed quiet. When the food came, they helped him eat. When he vomited it up, they changed his shirt. When the patient died, she wished she could have sent him one of those notes saying "It was a pleasure to have to die here."

jane

Feb 13 2004 2:09 am

but my guess is that it has to be true of any complex human society, or no one would be able to accumulate enough wealth to *do* anything with it

Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to exist. People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people on earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.

Someone would take it away, or there would be pressure to share it.

But here you're assuming that stuff is owned. If individuals aren't "owning" stuff, there's not taking away (transfering possession of property from one individual or group to another). There's also no pressure to share (dividing possession of property among individuals within a group).

We rely on the government to arrest and punish those people who break this underlying principle, so that society as a whole continues to respect individual property rights. This isn't to say that the gov does it perfectly, but it does it.

What I'm saying is that the government does not do that. I remember thinking they did, but either I got it wrong or things have changed. Police focus on order, violent crime, and drugs (and revenue production, but that's a different discussion). Larceny is not a priority. My recollection is that the police investigated larceny 20 or 30 years ago, but maybe they were just less candid about their inability to deal with it. Nowadays, they are pretty up front about saying "we don't investigate this kind of crime, but if we come across anything, we'll let you know."

Theft is accepted in our culture. We're not supposed to actually do it, but we know that people will do it to us. And we understand that when they do, we probably won't get whatever it is back. If we want to prevent shoplifting, we have to hire security. If we want to protect ourselves against someone stealing our car or our jewelry, we buy insurance. We lock our doors, and buy LoJack, and keep dogs. We have home safes and safe deposit boxes. We form Neighborhood Watch groups, where the police come and tell us not to plant trees in front of our windows.

Otherwise, someone could just walk into my house, and push me out, and move in...and it wouldn't be considered wrong.

Well, if she *physically* pushed you out, that would bring it into the violent crime area. But as a general rule, squatters and trespassing are not handled by the police either. I think that "sue him" and "take him to Housing Court" must be the two most common things police say on calls.

jane

Feb 13 2004 2:32 am

I see what you're saying, but I think 'don't' is oversimplifying. The high negatives of stealing (restoring others' property, jail time, loss of job/spouse/kids, etc.) are there not just to respond to theft, but also to provide that extra disincentive to hopefully sway the swayable away from stealing in the first place.

Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most stealing. No one is going to jail. No one is going to catch you. No one really cares all that much. Taking other people's stuff is no big deal.

That said, you can get yourself in trouble involving theft. Using weapons is bad. Attacking people to steal from them is bad. Bank robbery is very bad. Breaking into people's houses to steal from them at night is bad. Grand theft, stealing very expensive stuff, can carry some significant penalities.

And I don't mean to say that there is absolutely no investigation of larceny either. No one is going to go looking for your SUV, but resources may be devoted to a stolen car ring.

jane

Feb 13 2004 4:47 pm

I don't agree that no one will go looking for the SUV I already don't have. The value cutoff where a reasonable amount of police work can be (or even should be) expected differs very much by police department size and the extent to which there's violent crime or more expensive thefts in the queue ahead of investigating the circumstances of my missing theoretical vehicle.
Kathy

Geez, I don't have an SUV either, maybe I'll move to California so I can just get me somebody else's!!

When my car was stolen, I filed a police report. It was one of six cars the guy had stolen. The police found it, and him, after he abandoned the car in a vacant lot completely trashed. Do I think there was an APB out on my car in the intervening time? I doubt it. But they *knew* who took it, the cop told me that the first night! But they didn't have the manpower to stake out his house and job.
Anne

Right. I'm not cop bashing, Anne. I think people tend to be startled when the police say things like this, though.

Police department size, unfortunately, is determined by population. Bigger areas have more police, but they have more crime too.

Yeah. I keep wondering about that variation thing. I'm not entirely sure that no one is looking for Kathy's SUV at all. Here, like Princeton, police "keep an eye out" for stolen vehicles.

So, of course, I'm googling. Beyond doubt .pdf is the end of civilization as we know it.

But look at this adorable NJ crime statistics report.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2002/pdf/2002_sect2.pdf

I love the analog stop watch. It looks as though you guys are in pretty good shape. The arrest rate is less than 6%, but recovery value is almost 57% and you're only seeing about $300 million per year in vehicle theft to begin with. So NJ cops seem to be doing a good job with keeping an eye out for abandoned stolen cars.

However, in California where we live, the total stolen vehicle value is about $1.25 billion per year, but the arrest rate is closer to 10%. (citing for Brenna) According to the FBI 2002 report, "The Western Region, with 22.8 percent of the Nation's population, had an estimated 32.9 percent of the motor vehicle theft offenses...the highest estimated rate, 625.1 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 inhabitants...[and] the only increase, 8.0 percent, in rate from 2001 to 2002."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmotorvt10.html

Anyway, there does seem to be some variation regionally and according to urban/rural character. And I do think there is some variation among police departments.

jane

Feb 13 2004 10:33 pm

Jane.
Back AWAY from the Google.

Well, I did. Lee and I went to hear Madeleine Albright speak. It was great.

jane

Feb 14 2004 12:18 pm

But which is it, efficiency or maximisation of production

Sorry, maximization of efficient production.

jane

Feb 14 2004 1:26 pm

Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to exist. People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people on earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.

I'm not too clear what we're talking of, here. What is wealth?

What were you talking about? I thought you meant the wherewithal to invest. Surplus beyond fundamental subsistence.

(I'm assuming here wealth refers to a stash of goods of some kind, a very concrete kind of definition.)

Is that what you were talking about? That's not what I was talking about. But I was responding to what you said, and I might have misunderstood. I thought we were including tangibles and intangibles. Time, for example.

So how does it work? I dig up a piece of land that I like but don't own, and plant potatoes. When I harvest them, I leave them in baskets for anyone to take? And the man who wove the baskets gives them to me when I ask?

Do you mean this literally? Because that seems disorganized to me.

The issue of ownership comes up when any resource becomes scarce. If I like the land where I plant potatoes, but my neighbor wants it for carrots, how do we resolve it?

I don't agree with that ownership always comes up when a resource is scarce. Some, maybe most, property is already not possessed by individuals. We resolve allocation conflict in a variety of ways. With some things, like corporations, we have boards of directors whom we choose to make decisions. With others, like the tv in the livingroom, we might take turns deciding. Other things, like the food in the cabinet, individuals consume at will. Negotiation, give and take, compromise and collaboration all come into play.

Are we talking of collective ownership? So that the whole tribe owns all the cultivated land, and decides who will grow what where, and what will be done with the result?

Leaving out the part about owning it, yes.

Really? That's a bit scary. I'm imagining a situation where, say, I'm out of the country for a couple of weeks. Someone picks my lock and gets into my house, and takes up residence. I return to find him in possession of my home and all that's in it. If I go to the police, can't I get redress?

Sure, sort of. Breaking into your house is a crime. Cops do B&E.

But it's still your responsibility to protect your property in your absence. After two weeks, the cops will probably come and get the guy out, but you'll get the lecture about locks and stopping your mail and security systems. But say it's a month. The guys says he lives there because he's your caretaker and shows the cops some mail in his name at your house. You get the address of Housing Court.

Property requires care. Owners are responsible for taking care of their property. Monitoring it, securing it, keeping it safe. You can't just leave your property unattended and expect the police to take care of it for you.

jane

Feb 15 2004 1:15 pm

Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most stealing. No one is going to jail. No one is going to catch you. No one really cares all that much. Taking other people's stuff is no big deal.

I think individual people care a great deal, irrespective of whether petty thieves or even not so petty thieves are caught and punished. Honestly, I think the attitude you're describing is really sad, and I hope it's not as pervasive as you're suggesting.

This stuck in my head enough that I felt I had to come back and reply. I think social class is involved in this. There seems to be a middle-class idea that the stuff you own just belongs to you. The government is there to make sure no one takes it away. IME this concept is foreign to the rich and the poor, who would never rely on the government to protect their stuff.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain. It's like a store. If you don't want people to shoplift, you hire security and install cameras. If you catch someone stealing from you, you might call the police. But stores don't expect the police to be their security. No one expects the government to catch shoplifters or even to punish them to any significant degree.

jane

Feb 16 2004 10:57 am

I think we're coming up against practical truths vs ideals. It may be true that the police are so stretched that they don't want to deal with anything less than, say, murder. And of course it makes sense for people to take security precautions.

See, no, I don't think that's what this is. That people take care of their own stuff is an ideal, not just a practical truth. It seems to me to be a fundamental value that runs through our law. What belongs to you is what you can acquire and take care of. We don't want property in the hands of people who don't take care of it. It's inefficient. If you leave stuff lying around, someone who can make better use of it should have it.

It occurs to me that cars complicated things. Having a chunk of a family's wealth on wheels put things in a different perspective.

But what's the logical end to all that? Private militias, as the Philippines used to have? Every rich man had a small army of men with weapons to defend him and his. In Bombay (Mumbai) a few years ago, rich men were so vulnerable to extortion that they had armed guards for their wives and for each child. In Delhi, most wealthy people have sentries at their gates; there are services that provide these guards, many of whom are retired soldiers or policemen.

In the US, most people don't (yet) feel the need for bodyguards, or for sentries.

Yeah, no, yeah, no. Private security does not sound significantly different here than in Bombay. It's an understood and accepted cost of doing business or of being rich. It doesn't even occur to people that the police aren't doing their job because Microsoft or Robinson's May or Bill Gates or Madonna have to employ security. But somehow there's still this belief that the government should be protecting their SUVs.

Also, you're blurring individual safety with protection of property. Kidnapping is something everyone expects the government to do something about. Robbery, carjacking, mugging, burglary - they're bad because they endanger people.

jane