And when it is yours, you care about it more than when it isn't.
You care more because you like it, not because you own it.
I know that you absolutely adore macarons parisiens. Suppose you are promised to have a dozen of them delivered every week.
From Laudrée? Or Gérard Mulot? Can I choose? Is this arrangement forever?
Now wipe that rather viscous liquid off your face, please. It's just a hypothesis.
What does such a hypothesis have to do with our discussion?
If you are not involved in any way with the ownership of the pâtisseries, you don't mind whether one closes or not.
As long as I can get the same macarons...
But if you happen to have some stake in the ownership of a pâtisserie, you would make efforts so that it would stay happily open.
My interest is not in the macaron business, but purely in the macarons.
Think about your house. Your ultimate interest is in the service that it provides, but that means you are interested in the house as well. They are inseparable. The point is that exclusive or near-exclusive ownership has great significance in terms of how we treat that object.
What concerns us is the function of the house, such as the quality of the roof, the number of toilets, the orientation and the size of the windows, etc. However, if we are renting the house, we tend to be less careful about its maintenance as compared to when we own it.
You see?
Isn't that about responsibility and not ownership, though?
Even as a tenant, you have certain responsibilities, and in fact, it is in your interest to do your best for its maintenance. We know that if the tenant buys the same house, her/his attitude toward the house changes.
Doesn't it depend on the landlord whether we feel like doing our best or not?
To some extent, yes. But I can safely say that, on average, owners are more concerned than renters. The principle applies to any rental: car, furniture, sports equipment, party dresses, etc. That is one of the important reasons why home ownership is encouraged by numerous governments around the world.
Why are they worried whether we look after our dwellings or not?
Once the house becomes yours, you start thinking about the neighborhood more as your neighborhood. You will be much more concerned about the wellness of the community, and hence, of the nation.
You don't want any anti-government riot down the street that would damage and even destroy your house.
For example, yes.
On the other hand, we know that making everything belong to everybody does not work.
Collectivism and communism have made a grave error in that sense. Our desire to own is so basic that any system that attempts to suppress it is doomed to fail.
We could say that they tried to satisfy that very desire of everyone by making ownership a collective one.
Yes. But remember: if it purports to be everything, it is in fact nothing.
Applying that to our case, we can say: if something belongs to all of us, it is equivalent to not to belonging to anyone. Right?
Unfortunately, the answer is 'yes.' If all of us could muster the same enthusiasm that we have for our own houses for our ultimate home, the planet earth, we wouldn't have had serious environmental problems in the first place.
I think the key is the knowledge that something belongs to me, but not to the archenemy in your class or office.
True, we take greater care if that allows us to exhibit our superiority to people whom we are not fond of. The same principle works with those that you like, too. In that case, we may say that it is pride---instead of superiority---that you feel.
It sounds more benign, but the core principle remains the same.
Right again. You want your family members, for example, to be proud of you, but that does not make too much sense if every family has a member who has achieved exactly what you have. In other words, instead of individual against another individual, it is family against another family.
I'd say ownership is a powerful device for enlarging or enhancing who you are.
You can become more desirable and elevated in status if you own an object that everyone else wants but does not have. The item that you own is an extension of who you are.
We know many men who flaunt their pretty lovers and spouses in the identical manner as they show off their fancy cars, Rolex watches and fat cigars.
Women tend to put similar items on exhibition: successful lovers and spouses, Hermès scarves and so on. Perhaps you remember---we talked about how we treat our family members as extensions of ourselves. We bring up the members' skills and abilities in a certain domain, when the person in front of you has an upper hand vis-à-vis you in that field.
You may be better at flapping your ears than I am, but let me tell you, my brother is reaaaaallly good at it. That one?
If an object is under collective ownership, it is not clear to which individuals it owes its current existence. In contrast, if it belongs to you and nobody else, people around you will get an unmistakable message that you alone are responsible for its condition, splendid or miserable. In short, private ownership gives a clear signal as to who had the power to acquire it and who put in the efforts for its upkeep.
All of us are eager to show to others that we are powerful enough to obtain consent from the object to be possessed, or from its former owner to transfer its ownership to us.
Isn't it funny and sad at the same time that we discover tremendous energy in order to get ahead of, or even defeat, not only the ones that we do not like but also anyone around us? In the same vein, if collective efforts are to be fruitful, we need a common enemy.
All we need is not love, but a galaxy wide contest for containing the excessive emission of greenhouse gases!
Do you think extraterrestrial beings are as stupid and selfish as we are? The paradox here is that we would not survive collectively, if we do not follow our egotistic instincts to some degree---that is, if we do not look after the little world around each of us, because that is what most of us are equipped to do and no more.
Let us be selfish for the common good, then.
There is great danger in saying that. 'Everyone for her/himself' certainly does not aggregate into 'the system for itself.' It's a fallacy of composition. Here's another tenet of mine: the optimal is between the extremes.
Isn't that a logical fallacy as well---that any compromise between two positions is correct?
I think not. The Golden Mean Fallacy concerns any two propositions that are present, not necessarily the extremes.
Okay, another one of yours: we will never come to an agreement where that optimal is.
Because if we unanimously agree, it means someone had her/his arm twisted.
Comrade, it's a promising start for the new year!
Posts
