Property

[RWStanding]

Property
It is obvious that property in its many forms may be owned and controlled in a hundred and one ways, when these are defined in petty detail. But these will in fact be variations on a broad theme, in which the opposing absolutist forms are but three. In the clear nature of a tripartite division, the opposing forms are not diametrically opposite each other. Each one is diametrically opposite a value which is shared by the opposing forms of society.
The first is ownership and control of all things and humanity from the centre of society, by at least an oligarchy and at the extreme a single potentate – king or emperor, godfather, or as may be termed. Such a tyranny standing opposite the values of freedom and equality. A potentate who believes in any degree of freedom for his citizens, thereby moving them away towards ‘free’ society.
The second is an ultimate division of ownership and control by all people, individually, and equally – as may be pragmatically possible. And not what we have today as an equality of opportunity to become unequal, or some people being more equal than others. Standing diametrically opposite the value of duty and responsibility.
The third is ownership and control by corporate society for the benefit of all people and the natural world – or rather, not ownership but responsibility. But pragmatically, and considering aspects of life other than property, not a global unity but a diffuse federation, and its citizens having an equality of responsibility according to their nature. Standing opposite the arrogant value that denotes the other two forms of society.
Pragmatism is an essential value - and which of the three forms of absolutist society does that most apply to?
It is important to point out that any person, not under AI control, will be able to believe in whatever cosmology created by secular or religious philosophy, appeals to him. His “god” defining which of the three forms of society he also believes in and belongs to. They are not compatible.

[Impenitent]

if you have nothing, you can't be too charitable...

-Imp

[Walker]

Prudence says, "Don't give away what's left," and for that the selfish called her Prude.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Prudence says, "Don't give away what's left," and for that the selfish called her Prude.

Why do they engage in that non-sequitur?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

if you have nothing, you can't be too charitable...

-Imp

Indeed, I give it freely every day. I started out with nothing, and I've still got most of it left.