January 29, 2012
The Origins of Property: A Parable with Morals
Terrence Tomkow in his blog:
Once upon a time there was a primitive tribe that hunted and gathered in a verdant forest in a temperate clime.
I call them a "tribe" but that name may mislead if it suggests some rigorous form of social organization. In fact, the group was about as un-organized as it is possible for people to be. There were among them no elders, chiefs, shamans or any other kind of leader with authority over his fellows. With one exception-- which we will soon discuss -- there were no laws, rules or taboos that were obeyed or enforced among them and no judges or police to enforce them.
This lack of norms was reflected in their language which (luckily for our narrative purposes) was much like modern English but which lacked any moral or legal vocabulary. The natives never spoke of 'right' or 'wrong', 'legal' or 'law'. They had no words for 'promise', or 'contract' and none for 'property' or 'ownership'.
Even so, as I just averred, there was one rule that the natives generally acknowledged and mostly conformed to. They called it "The Rule".
The Rule: No Bullying!
By 'bullying' the natives seem to have meant, roughly, hurting other people or using force or the threat of force to compel others to do what they would otherwise not do. But not every use of force or infliction of harm was regarded as bullying.
It was, for example, not considered bullying to use force or its threat to defend oneself or someone else against a bully. The Rule permitted self-defense and "other defense" and this had important consequences for all of tribal life.
To understand these upshots it is necessary to understand that the tribe's aversion to bullying did not mean that they were averse to violence or the use of force.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:43 PM | Permalink




















Comments
I think if you substitute white, non-disabled, computer programmer for Wilt you can get a better sense of the unrecognized privilege and hidden assumptions in that tale.
Posted by: andrew c | Jan 29, 2012 5:33:03 PM
Why not simply post a link to Rousseau's On the Origin of Inequality?
Posted by: Justin | Jan 30, 2012 12:39:45 AM
Andrew, I do hope you enjoyed deploying the laziest of faux-academic critical concepts, there. Does it make you feel better? Good. I suppose it doesn't matter that Tomkow's Wilt is a covert reference to Wilt Chamberlain. Nope, it's white privilege all the way down.
Justin:
Rousseau? Hm. Let's see:
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society."
- Rousseau
"Yet Wilt -- our Wilt-- was not the first to discover his land. Nor did he mix his labor with it. Neither upon it did he spin nor did he toil. We could have told our story so that he had never set foot on it before acquiring it. I conclude therefore that discovering first, mixing your labor with or improving things is no more essential to their first acquisition than is killing bears."
- Tomkow
Now, the both of you, stop being so goddamned lazy. The easiest thing in the world is to reduce a piece of writing to an expression of race- or class-privilege, and the second-easiest thing in the world is to claim that it's plagarized from some other writer (who you are very concerned to inform us, you have read, how impressive!). Try actually engaging with the piece, it might do you some good.
Posted by: Joe | Jan 30, 2012 8:44:44 AM
Post a comment