this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
337 points (94.9% liked)

News

23655 readers
3619 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The concept of private ownership is weird, if you think about it. It's like penguins collecting stones they've found and not letting anyone come close

[–] Ikelton@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

When you describe it like that... I feel like it makes more sense. Like, of course the penguin is gonna want his safety stones. I buy that.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn't made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.

It's land that wasn't made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

But where to keep all my stuff asked the guy eternally renting?

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.

(Btw, English is not my main language)

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Only the owner (or shareholders) Researchers in universities, are getting paid by public funding from tax payers money (which is agood thing). Every major development is the product of lots of tiny developments and advansments in which the creators or inventors didn't get their compensation from the end product. Workers in manufacturing are getting paid the least amount of compensation the owner can get away with, or even worse, manufacturing is moved to countries with even less protection for workers. Oh, and workers need protection from the owners.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Only in frictionless spherical cow in a vacuum territory - that is to say in theory in unachievable ideal conditions. In the real world the market is wildly distorted and people are forced by a variety of external pressures to participate even if they don't believe they are being offered what they are worth.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But land is literally the first form of property. Territory is defended in life’s history long before any moveable object.

If anything, the conception of certain objects as being part of a person’s territory is the stranger step to take.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

This point neither supports nor erodes the logic of ownership of territory or land; it merely points out that it has a very long history. Many things have a long history, some of which have consistent reason and logic behind them, and some which do not.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes a penguin that owns some stones would indeed not want other penguins grabbing them. Glad we’re on the same page with how private ownership works.

[–] green_square@yiffit.net 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That's the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you've paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird....

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah I know how it works. I said the concept is weird, but it benefit some share holders, so I guess we'll have to live with it