|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I BELIEVE IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING | |||||||||||||||||
| By Julian Tebye | |||||||||||||||||
| E-Mail: [email protected] | |||||||||||||||||
| Private ownership? I think not. | |||||||||||||||||
| I forget the name of the violinist who "owned" a Stradivarius. He shook his head, "I do not own this Stradivarius; I am merely its caretaker for the moment--to pass it on to the next generation." | |||||||||||||||||
| Thus, I think likewise with all material goods--be it books, computers, paintings, houses, a national park, a factory---whatever. In the period of Absolutism in Europe, the king "owned" his State. "L'etat, c'est moi." And when the monarch (owner) dies, his heir (heiress) becomes "the" owner (for a period of time) of those same material goods. Though no monarch or dictator has ever had absolute power. (I suspect Lord Acton was aware that only a hypothetical God has absolute power--when he stated, "...absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.") | |||||||||||||||||
| I think of Marx and his Labor theory of Value. I labored ten times as hard and long as Leonardo to paint the portrait of a young lady. Therefore my painting should be worth ten times what the Mona Lisa is worth. | |||||||||||||||||
| Ah, but there is the matter of skilled labor--and, in the case of Leonardo, that ineffable thing known as "genius!" The Mona Lisa is worth--let us say--five billion dollars. Being wealthy (remember--this is all hypothetical), I purchase the Mona Lisa for five billion dollars. The Mona Lisa is now "mine." I remove it from its frame and cast it into the fireplace to be consumed by flames. | |||||||||||||||||
| Why do you gasp? You agreed that it was worth five billion dollars; I gave you the five billion dollars! Are they not equivalent? The Mona Lisa and five billion dollars?! | |||||||||||||||||
| As many of you already know, the "value" of a material object is not its worth in dollars. That is its "cost"--and "cost" is rarely "value." (This is nothing new. Someone remarked, "A cynic [or was it, "A pragmatist..." or some other label?] knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.") | |||||||||||||||||
| For example, for about 20 dollars, I bought a copy of Mahler's Second Symphony. I listened to it, enthralled, again and again. No--I did not listen only to that piece of music. Even perceived perfection becomes dull and boring if you have no variety. (This is my chief argument against the beauty of a Christian Heaven and the horror of a Christian Hell. Come on--after you get prodded by the same burning pitchfork 40 million times, it becomes rather "ho-hum.") | |||||||||||||||||
| My CD of Mahler. An acquaintance came by. He saw the CD as cost, not value. He stole it when I wasn't looking. He probably sold it for a dollar, while I had paid 20 dollars. He shrugged. He hadn't paid the 20, but he did receive the dollar. Again-"cost" versus "value." To him, he stole money; to me, he stole uncountable hours of untold pleasure. Sure, I can buy it again. But, I am not that hypothetical billionaire--I must wait a week or two. | |||||||||||||||||
| And, meanwhile, there is the sense of being victimized, the misplaced trust, the idea of being used and taken advantage of. Sure, I could guard my possessions, let no "casual acquaintance" into my house. I think not. I love people. I enjoy getting to know new people. I am not a misanthrope. I would rather chance loss than to say, "I will never trust another human again!" (I have known people who have said and done that. I don't envy them.) | |||||||||||||||||
| This is life. I think we must live--as Reich and Saroyan advised. I have known several people who spent the last years of their life fearing and denying death. My opinion: Those who have lived (rather than simply existed) have no fear of death. Those who fear death are those who have also feared to live. | |||||||||||||||||
| To return to "cost" versus "value" (or did we ever leave the subject?)--I think: We are dreamers; we dream of a utopian society. Let us also dream of a society, which honors value--not cost. | |||||||||||||||||
| Private property? No! Let us be caretakers, not owners. Were I the caretaker of the Mona Lisa, it would be mine to take care of. But that is not quite the same as owning the Mona Lisa. | |||||||||||||||||
| This article is in response to a statement by Ronald C. Tobin (11-18-04): "I believe in private ownership of everything. Doubtless you disagree and you are free to do so." | |||||||||||||||||
| I countered with a suggestion that he clarify his statement. And I facetiously announced that I intended to own Yellowstone, Yosemite, Sequoia and the Grand Canyon--and I had my eye on Niagara Falls. | |||||||||||||||||
| Ronald C. Tobin replied: "If you can afford those properties, buy them. You would likely take far better care of them." | |||||||||||||||||
| But, Ron...! Even if I could afford just one of them-say the Grand Canyon--I would not take better care of it; indeed, my care-taking efforts would undoubtedly be not even half as good as the present half-assed care-taking efforts of the U.S. government. | |||||||||||||||||
| "Private ownership of everything" sounds great, and I am inclined to agree with you. But what if my care-taking efforts were dismally inadequate? | |||||||||||||||||
| What then? | |||||||||||||||||
| TOBIN'S RESPONSE TO TEBYE | |||||||||||||||||
| By Ronald C. Tobin E-Mail: [email protected] | |||||||||||||||||
| First of all, just in case anyone out there is inclined to believe that I was joking when I made that statement to Mr. Tebye, allow me to make it clear that I was completely serious. I do, indeed, believe that everything should be privately owned. States have no legitimate right to exist, much less to own land or objects or structures. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. | |||||||||||||||||
| While it certainly sounds like a noble sentiment to call for everyone to not consider themselves owners but instead to be caretakers, as a matter of principle I tend to disagree. That is especially true as regards objects and structures. A computer is a tool, not something to be revered and passed down from generation to generation. Just like a car or a bike or a hammer or a microwave oven. When a light bulb burns out, do you enshrine it, Mr. Tebye? I doubt that very much. Like the rest of us, you throw it away, and to the dump it goes. | |||||||||||||||||
| As I see it, it is laudable that the violinist who owned the Stradivarius wanted to take care of it and preserve its beauty for future generations to behold and enjoy. However, if he had wanted to smash it against the wall, I would have regarded him as being a fool but he would have been well within his rights to do so. So long as your actions do not cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual, you have the right to use your property as you see fit. | |||||||||||||||||
| As for the Mona Lisa, the same goes. If you buy it from the Louvre, and you proceed to draw a mustache on it, tear it to shreds, burn it, well, that is your right as its owner. You would have no obligation to preserve it. I certainly would not hold anyone who did that in high regard, but that is a right of ownership. | |||||||||||||||||
| The notion of cost not reflecting value has some merit, depending on the item in question. The fiend who stole your CD should be forced to pay for a new one, plus compensate you for the loss of pleasure. Still, different people place different values on objects, structures, land, whatever. That CD you willingly paid $20 for may only be worth $5 to me. Conversely, a book I might be willing to part with $50 for you might not think is worth a dime. When it comes to tangible property, value is in the eyes of the individual. That is a fact of life. | |||||||||||||||||
| I agree with your attitudes regarding life - it should be lived, and death should not be feared. I think that is a great perspective to have, and I wish more people thought that way. Fear is a mind killer indeed. | |||||||||||||||||
| So now we come to the national forest and park question. A person with the caretaker attitude that you have, would not purchase a place like the Grand Canyon (even presuming you had the money) unless you knew you could take care of it. What I would like to see is some of these environmental groups who presently lobby the government to pass draconian laws in a vain effort to protect the wildlands to put their money where their mouths are and actually buy these places. I find that preferable to what happens now, with the government extorting funds from all of us to fund land purchases and then doing a lousy job at maintaining these treasures. Even if the government did a great job as caretaker, I would still argue for private ownership. And you all know why I would: taxation is theft and States have no legitimate right to exist. I find that argument sufficient. | |||||||||||||||||
| I suppose if someone or some group bought a place like Yosemite and then could not take care of it, some other group would step forward and buy it and do better. If the owner refused to sell, and what was being done was causing harm to the person and/or property of others, arbitration would take place and a proper solution reached. No state does not mean there would not be avenues to resolve disputes. | |||||||||||||||||
| I hope I have answered your question, Mr. Tebye. I thank you for raising it. | |||||||||||||||||
| [This exchange originally appeared in the November/December 2004 issue of THE THOUGHT.] | |||||||||||||||||
| RETURN TO MAIN INDEX | |||||||||||||||||