Coding Land & Ideas | The Laws of Capitalism Episode 1

In this first episode, Professor Katharina Pistor (‪@ColumbiaLawSchool1‬) introduces the concept of the legal "coding" of capital.
Prof. Pistor explains how the law selectively "codes" certain assets, endowing them with the capacity to protect and produce private wealth. She illustrates this process with the historical example of how land became legally coded as property during the enclosure movement in England. She compares it with more recent attempts to code traditional indigenous land use rights in Belize.
Prof. Pistor goes on to explain how even ideas (which are not natural property, in the traditional rivalrous sense of the term) can nonetheless be made property according to the law. The institutionalization of copyright and patent law has created an entire new class of property. How far can it go? She looks at the coding intellectual property in the medical industry, most notably recent attempts to patent human genes.
Learn more at lawsofcapitalis...

[@ili626]

Glad I found this. I’ll be rewatching, taking notes and anticipating each new episode

[@NewEconomicThinking]

Coming at you next Wednesday!

[@Teshub]

@@NewEconomicThinking Reminds me of the description of the legal regimes of primitive accumulation described by Michael Perelman in his book Invention of Capitalism.

[@instantpotenjoyer]

this excellent content is quite nuanced, pithy, and sophisticated - the antithesis of what the youtube algorithm wants 😢

[@NewEconomicThinking]

With your help we'll keep pushing the rock up the hill until we get to the top.

[@youdoyou888]

Isn’t it rather the antithesis of what the culture at large wants? Just yesterday I did a (supremely) cursory research on the highest earning channels, checked out a channel ranked around top 50, and concluded that the contents of the top grossers don’t interest me.

[@NewEconomicThinking]

There are several lessons in that observation alone.

[@ishita8486]

@@NewEconomicThinking more econ that my grad degree taught me

[@gazesalso645]

@@youdoyou888 well, what does "culture at large want"?. Demand engineering is a discipline and it's impossible to escape its application. I didn't start off on KZbin watching cat videos or whatever but algorithms know better.

[@jonathanbailey1597]

Her book "The Code of Capital" is excellent

[@metashdw]

I read it after watching this video. Amazing book. I devoured it in 10 days

[@jimjmcd]

The law locks up the man or woman Who steals a goose from off the common, But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose.

[@nightoftheworld]

Yes Chesterton crossed my mind too

[@nightoftheworld]

@@a.k8069 well you are perpetuating Locke’s and Hardin’s ignorant savage/virtuous free market myth. The commons were a shared resource which had living boundaries, rules, social norms and sanctions against free riders, not some free for all, contract-less “no man’s land” destined to be misused-that was the narrative given to support appropriation/colonization. The valorization of “labor and property” above “state of nature” native practices of subsistence was intolerant self-interest parading as universal truth. Modern comforts granted-how can we forget about all of our contemporary global problems of private ownership and the mega externalities such self-interested relationships to nature have produced (global micro-plastic/chemical pollution, nuclear warfare, global warming, mass species extinction..)? To acknowledge the tragedy of the commons as largely a myth is to begin to repair the violence from the establishment of our constitutions on top of the bodies of indigenous/ poor/ enslaved individuals.

[@pariscribe5245]

Always has done ! The trumps of this world don't own a cent but will never live on the streets because their debt is too big or shady in his case to "enforce" or reclaim ! Just look at D.B and their relation to the jerk and see that it started with his dad and his relationship with 🇩🇪

[@bgiv2010]

@@a.k8069 if that were the case, then humans would've ruined the environment thousands of years ago. This video even goes over traditional collective land-use customs practiced under the guidance of indigenous peoples to this day! Why did the Great Dust Bowl happen AFTER land in North America became governed by codified laws? Also what do you think the Commons means? Redlining has nothing to do with this.

[@bgiv2010]

@@a.k8069 that's the myth though. The Tragedy of the Commons is an invention by capitalists, like barter, designed to convince people that greed is the only overriding human trait (and that it should be rewarded). No, people can (and do) communicate and cooperate in order to nurture shared resources. The real Tragedy of the Commons is that capitalists can't comprehend the concept of the Commons. There's no "seeking their own profitability" with a shared resource. Profit can only rightfully come from one's own private property, another recent invention. The whole point of the Commons is that the participants agree to share it. Land was successfully managed collectively before enclosure and imperialism made it largely illegal.

[@timothykangethe7700]

She's well read and breaks down Historical events with exceptional structure and ease. An Impressive knowledgeable treatise.

[@AmitErandole]

brilliantly explained. waiting for part 2

[@NewEconomicThinking]

New episodes every Wednesday for the next 6 weeks

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

If you are not trying to cheat you are not trying to win! If you are a capitalist this should be no surprise or sense of injustice. Thats what the game is about. The point of competition is to win.

[@NewEconomicThinking]

"incentives"🤮

[@kristinwatkins371]

We ought to abolish private property all together.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Theres no such thing. If you dont own yourself then who does, the community? you cant escape ownership.

[@badbaldbish]

@@PoliticalEconomy101 Private property and personal property are two different things. Your person, your home that you live in, are personal property. A farm and equipment owned by a corporation is private property.

[@tuckerbugeater]

We've already been down this road commie.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

False. Private property includes personal property

[@L154N4LG4IB]

@@PoliticalEconomy101 no it doesn’t private property as a term literally has its origins in legal classifications of properties owned by commercial entities or what we may today describe as a private company. Don’t be historically illiterate.

[@olgamarinho]

Recently found this channel. Excellent content.

[@JudgeFredd]

Great informative content for making us awake

[@mrmr4737]

Fantastic discussion. I just found this channel yesterday. Looking forward to new episodes. Cheers!

[@housingrevolution2024]

Despite little in the Constitution about property rights, a lot of debate went on at the Constitutional Convention about finding the balance between property rights and personal rights. In Madison’s notes to his speech on this topic, he does say that property protections should only be given to those portions of property the owner is cultivating and laboring. Two years prior, Jefferson wrote of a Geometric Property Tax that would have removed the economic incentive from hoarding land. About four score later, Lincoln was quoted as saying to the effect that no one should be able to own land they are not living or working on. So while the Constitution, written by landowners, sets no limits on the amount of land one person can own, despite the founders' hatred of Feudalism, there is ample documentation that they, and future leaders like Lincoln, were concerned about the potential for the New Feudalism that is plaguing our country now, and had some decent ideas for us to consider as we inch closer to land reformation.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

If Capital is removed from the social structures that determine ownership, the measure of how much a piece of Property is worth is changed. The Lakota assumed that land was not something to be exploited, but protected and maintained for seven Generations. Capitalism creating demands for growth, seem to threaten the Existence of the area we stand upon? So if we attempt to defend the Earth, or Grandmother, as indigenous folks were know to refer to Her, is to be protected. There is where we enter into the respect that the Earth deserves? Are we forced to defend the Earth as a living organism, as the Native Americans believed, to sustain Human existence? Has the threat that Global Warming presented, added another element to the discussion of Capitalism, as a worthy social structure?

[@housingrevolution2024]

@@danielhutchinson6604 It certainly has...at least with some of us.

[@Grimm6667]

Bravo! This is a brilliant resource. Thank you for creating these.

[@katiecannon8186]

Pistor is absolutely wonderful. Such a clear presentation of a complicated subject that can be very difficult to wrap our heads around because it describes the water in which we fish just swim around in & never really think much about. Plus, with the rise of neoliberal and “libertarian” thinking, it flies in the face of their fact free narrative.

[@chairman6652]

This lady just totally blew my mind .

[@HillbillyHippyOG]

Earth is a common inheritance to all, it is pure self-serving hubris for some to claim ownership of it. A right to life implies a right to the resources necessary to maintain life -in other words, a right to the land. ✌🏼

[@outsidethebox2037]

Yes wouldn't it be an ideal world if borders no longer existed....there was a time when that was true (it's still true for the animal kingdom), but MAN decided otherwise.....man decided to settle and grow communities....look where that's taken us...🧐

[@HorusHerotic]

If you walked into your home today, to find me sat on the sofa eating from the fridge, would you say the same?

[@HillbillyHippyOG]

@@HorusHerotic Personally, if I found you in my house, eating from my fridge, I would simply begin by asking you why you had violated this clear social norm. Beyond that, I cannot say since my next actions would depend on your answer. Your premise assumes that an attitude of mutual respect for life destroys the common sense (and therefore common law) understanding of ownership. A kindergartner understands how to share the playground and the toys without forfeiting their own sovereignty. Peaceful societies successfully shared common land long before the idea of land ownership existed. It simply begins with an understanding that ALL are equally deserving of our common inheritance. If we presuppose our fellow humans are our brothers and not our enemies, then peaceful solutions arise. If we presuppose our fellow humans are ignorant savages, then violent, law-of-the-jungle solutions are the only ones possible.✌🏼

[@HorusHerotic]

@@HillbillyHippyOG my answer would be " In my society their is no property and we share everything, therefore I shall sleep here from now on and eat the food within, as it belongs to us all"

[@alfrednewman2234]

Love it. Informative, concise, easy to grasp.

[@andreelliott467]

This speech brought up so many ideas

[@JonAKINYEMI]

Excellent body of work

[@kevinu.k.7042]

Superb. Thank you.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Great. very important subject.

[@nthperson]

Professor Pistor''s important analysis would be strengthened by adding the insights of Henry George. The laws relating to the treatment of land as private property are inherently unjust. Why? As George argued, land is our common asset from which all production must come. Ideally, access and control of land and other natural assets (e.g., frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) ought to be granted based on the payment of an annual rental charge determined by competitive bidding and adjusted at least every few years based on current bidding activity. And, ideally, whatever improvements are then made on the land held ought to be exempt from taxation. Buildings of all types are depreciating assets, assets that require ongoing expenditure of funds for maintenance. Periodically, expenditures on such tangible assets are large, as systems must be replaced. As we see all the time, buildings eventually depreciate to a condition that they must either be torn down and replaced or undergo extensive renovation and upgrading. The objective of public policy ought to be to eliminate the potential to financially gain by hoarding of or speculating in land, while at the same time providing a strong financial incentive for those who control land to bring the land held to its highest, best legal use, or sell to someone who will. She mentions Locke's analysis of how one gains property rights in land. What she does not mention is Locke's proviso: that enough of equal potential productivity is available for all. Locke understood that at some point -- even when the law prevents anyone from controlling land not efficiently utilized -- population increase will result in land coming to yield a rent on land that has superior potential productivity over whatever land is freely accessible. Edward J. Dodson School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@colonel__klink7548]

"they (property rights referring to land) didn't exist before." No, your example of the Maya indicates that a group claimed right to that property for centuries, their clan exerting the same sort of collective property right that a corporation would. This doesn't even mean that everyone would vote for every little thing in it's use, much like a corporation creates an executive most clans / tribes would pick a hetman, a chief, an executive to manage affairs like that. Often it would be quite hereditary.... Anyway property is the most ancient of ancient things, but ultimately what it's based upon is force. That clan was able to defend it against competitors and outsiders... until they couldn't, the British came in and took it away technically. It was only restored through benevolence of a state structured to consider such things. The land in the United States belonged to who could defend it. The natives here took property from each other whenever they had the might and when the European colonists arrived a 400 year, no holds barred, everyone against everyone bloodbath ensued. As tribes weakened not only did Europeans take advantage but so did other natives. The same thing with the English commons. Who had the muscle to defend the land, to dictate it's use in 1000ad? 1200ad? 1650ad? Oh... the great families (in effect clans. Most states were formed by the union of several tribes / clans, the founding families being considered "nobility." ) They had the money, the army, the means to defend it so it ultimately was theirs. The strangest thing is modern day where there is no longer much private force. So whose the real owner? The government. They have the force, they own it. They have the force, they decide if Mickey Mouse is exclusive to Disney for another decade or not and no one else does. We all lease our property from the government (what do you think property taxes are?) and if we ever fail to pay... they revoke the lease and find someone who will pay. But if there's ever a breakdown in governmental power it will revert to the old way, the families who can gather the most might be it corporate clans, biological clans what have you will return to ownership.

[@illogit]

Thank you for this excellent piece! (small correction: his name was "Brandeis")

[@jinsugarbrown]

Interesting definitions, Prof. Katharina Pistor.. It would have been equally valuable to elaborate on property rights as understood by the Vatican, especially given, its changing definitions and transactions with the state, indigenous land, ownership, theft, etc. Without the church's definition, we cannot fully grasp the idea of "property" throughout history.

[@fredganoe9791]

Excellent. Looking forward to Part 2.

[@Juan-ud3if]

Good job.❤❤❤

[@awesomeojoe123]

Commenting to contribute to the algorithm here

[@gregorybaillie2093]

Legal arguments about property is just the alpha class justifying to itself and mesmerizing others that in fact might is right.

[@user-vy5fr8ww1h]

I still don't get what it means that "property isn't defined but assumed"?

[@tommackling]

I recently wrote a short essay touching on the subject of ownership. In case anyone might enjoy reading it, here it is: Ownership, of course, is a societally defined and established concept. And it is a rather curious and largely essentially artifiical one. But we have a vast apparatus of law to define and protect ownership and the way in which ownership may be transfered, protected and established. But ownership still remains a strange sort of social construct. It comes about as the legal recognition of a claim, which is formally acknowledged with a legal deed or title, literally, ownership is a from of official entitlement. Unlike the society of the nomadic natives that formerly occupied North America, our society seems to have been very much focussed on the concept of legal entitlement and/or ownership. But still, under extreme circumstances, for example, when fewer than ten thousand men have managed to use their wealth to gain effective control over courts and governments, so as to the extent that they may now legitimately claim to own all of the land and resources that tens and hundreds of millions of people need to live on in order to survive, well, in such extraordinary circumstances, it has at least happened in the past that the tens and hundreds of millions decide they will not continue to honor or recognize that legal entitlement. And also, but in a different direction here, it is perhaps worth observing here, that in our, essentially capitalist society, legal entitlement associated with ownership is tightly coupled to another social construct, namely that of financial wealth. It is through such financial wealth whereby an individual or corporation may aquire the legally recognized entitlement of ownership. And generally, with ownership also comes certain legal entitlements and perogatives thereby conferred. And through a process generally called economic development but sometimes also known as rent collection, ownership and the associated entitlements and perogatives (such as the ability to collect rent) effectively serve as an engine of sorts, whereby additional wealth can be accrued. Thus wealth and ownership are highly coupled. In our, essentially capitalist society, we have, more or less, usually implicitly, or usually, in an only indirectly stated fashion, embraced an ideology of economic materialism. Materialism came about over a long historical journey, as people became less interested in "philosophical speculations" and "spiritual considerations", and more focussed on obtaining physical comfort. Marxist communist ideology too is, apparently, chiefly focussed on the same objectives and may also be safely regarded as a form of economic materialism. The chief disagreements seemingly having to do with the "efficiency" and seemingly, even more something like the "sanctity", of "private" or individually held, ownership (and property), and the relative importance or virtue of ensuring the economic wellbeing of individuals who are, or would otherwise be, poor and lacking both property and an effective means whereby such property may be obtained. There are also, historically speaking, some largely philosophical divisions impingent here, having to do with ideas of individual independence, merit and competition and the like, as well as an enormous concern over the "collective" or the "state", having too much administrative power and authority over the private affairs and activites of individual citizens. And certainly we have an historical basis for such concerns, as there, apparently, was indeed such a state enforced conscription into the labor force, during what amounted to the somewhat tardy industrialization and the factory assembly lines of the former USSR or Soviet Union, which had embarked on an attempt to build a successful "communist" society, - well apparently their great experiment ended before reaching the communist phase, which, apparently, was to occur only after a "socialist" phase had been successfully completed. But of course, given technologically enabled automation, it is also probably reasonable to suppose that there is now likely far less possible motivation for the state direction of individual human activity, and hence less societal pressure towards such a development. In terms of achieving the tacit goal of material confort for the broader citizenry, it may well be, in my opinion, that the more closely and directly held desire for personal economic affluence associated with capitalism indeed provided more effective motivational impetus of the citizenry towards the acheivement of general affluence. Certainly, towards the latter half of the previous century, it did appear that this may indeed have been the case, as the highest general standard of living was apparently enjoyed by the capitalist oriented United States (and although other socio-economic conditions may have played a significant role towards that determination, certainly the embraced "economic system" plausibly deserves significant recognition). But again, with de-industrialization and radical automation, together with job outsourcing associated with neoliberal "globalization", a lack of job opportunities and an effective target for that increased personal motivation may well render that "motivational advantage" (of everyone really wanting to be wealthier) some what fruitless or moot. And indeed we now observe declining standards of living, for the majority, in the previously more prosperous capitalist Western countries. And we are also observing a perhaps alarming increase in the economic disparity between those who are growing increasingly affluent, and, it seems, a majority of those who are growing increasingly impoverished. The real concern (it seems to me), with socialism, and now, apparently, also capitalism, is to somehow ensure against the existence and establishment of a minority "ruling" or administrative class, and the effective (deception, manipulation and) enslavement of those who do not belong to this exceptionally priviledged class. This, or rather, how society can be alternatively founded and constructed in such as way as to provide this guarantee of freedom from tyranny and "liberty for all", is now, it seems to me, perhaps the most pressing issue to be resolved. So long as "making it" remains our societally embraced principal individual aspiration, I think our "elected representatives" will likely continue to serve the interests of those who actually pamper them, rather than those they were "elected" to supposedly represent. So personally I advocate for a more radical reformation of our parlimentary structure, namely dynamically tiered direct democracy (where small groups of no more than 20 people meet, debate and decide, and pass their decisions, along with one of their number present selected to present these decisions and represent the wishes of the group that these decisions be embraced, up one level to the next tier of a similar meeting, in pyramidal fashion, until the final will of the people as well as those who will represent and facilitate the enactment of that will, percolates or bubbles up, to a temporarily assembled uppermost group, through a series of levelled democratic processes). Well, a fuller presentation and discussion is probably warrented here, but anyway. Finally, let me also point out that ownership, seemingly naturally entails certain perogatives, most significant amoung these being the right to have discretionary authority over the management of that which is owned. Very briefly returning to the observation that, in our current society, ownership is highly skewed to coincide with wealth, and also, that it seems wealth may well confer far too much general adminsitrative power and influence, (so much so that, for example, our representative democratic governments might be serving only the interests of the already exceptionally empowered), I want to point out that, in its most natural sense, "ownership" need not necessarily be something conferrable, alienable, or something that requires wealth, or something may be acquired through purchase or surrendered through sale. In a fundamental sense, every human being owns their own body, and, forgetting for a moment about all of our legal statutes and tomes of established legal precedence, roughly speaking, one owns that which chiefly one may command through the extertion of intention and will. All else, is pretty much artifice, due to historical developments involving the largely illegitimate claims of individual men and women to possessing the right to impose their own will on others. Your body is yours, and my body is mine, and every one of us, as individual human beings, has God given discretionary authority over the administration of our own bodies. And this is true no matter how wealthy certain individuals become and no matter how corrupt or authoritarian our government and civil agencies may be or may yet become. And (I think) we must remember this and our fundamental individual and inalienable God given human rights, and we must refuse to bow to tyranny. And we must refuse to comply with unreasonable demands and we must refuse to participate in evil. It doesn't matter how wealthy our modern ceasars are. It doesn't matter that our would be governors dance to their suggestions and seem bedzzaled and mesmerized by their earthly riches and treasure. We, who yet believe in truth and goodness, we who yet would serve to protect all that is truly good and worthwhile, we must stand in defiance of evil, and refuse to comply or participate in evil. May you know God's kindness and His love, His mercy and His grace. In Him we trust, and in Him we are united. Cheers, peace, love and God bless.

[@marianhunt8899]

Yes, we own our bodies, however, our bodies need clean water, food and shelter at a minimum and many people are now being deprived of these even in the West. It is beyond shocking and evil.

[@tommackling]

@Md Miah It is my opinion that we, in the so called Western World, have come to the end of the period where capitalism may be considered a viable socio-economic system, (mainly due to some inherent attributes it posesses, which effectively impose a limited lifespan, so to speak, at least for the period for which it might be possibly deemed to be advantageous on a societal level). And I fully anticipate that some alternative "foundation principals" for our socio-economic organization must fairly soon be found and adopted. I very much expect, for instance, we are heading towards general societal paralysis, where draconian policing and abusive, authoritarian governments vainly attempt to suffocate the population against a violent overthrow of perversely dysfunctional and generally malign administrative governance. And I wanted to attempt to lay out a very brief exploration of how we came to be where we are now, together with an attempted examination of how the blue-prints for such an alternative socio-economic system (or organizational scheme) might be fashioned, in such a way that the best aspects of capitalism, whatever they may be, might possibly be retained and the worst aspects of already tried alternatives might be avoided. But even more to the point, I would like to help in the instigation of a process whereby the larger population gains a greater apprehension and appreciation of the degree to which they too have the power and right to participate in the forging of their own futures; where it is not so much me that fashions their society, but the citizens themselves, and where the broader aspects of future society are largely forged through a process of collective "brain storming", the sharing and communication of ideas, thoughts and desires towards the establishment of what essentially constitutes a commonly (or commonly enough) shared vision, for our societal arrangement. In stating this intent, I am implicitly asserting that, on a mass scale, future reality is indeed born out of imagination and desire, and also, I suppose, that it is unsatisfactory, at least to me, that too few people are currently participating in this exercise of "future creation", as I chiefly blame the impoverishment and perversely dysfunctional nature of the current process of "future formation" on the condition that far too tiny a fraction of human minds are actively participating in the task. Basically I'd like to mitigate the violence and abuse of authoritarian governments trying to "hold on", and also mitigate the senseless violence, destruction, chaos and general dysfunction that may be expected to be associated with societal collapse typically associated with revolutionary periods, principally and ideally by helping facilitate a shortening of the duration of that period of chaos and general dysfunction. And finally, I hope that such a process, whereby the effective blueprints for a new society have already been established in the collective minds, will also help to ensure that the society that finally emerges from the rubble will actually be happier, healthier and generally more desirable than the one it replaced. Basically, I can see change on the horizon, and I'd like to help people to be better positioned for what is coming. Well, I think I might have embellished a wee bit here, making things sound more wonderful and exciting than is perhaps appropriate, but anyway, at least I think such concerns and considerations were my principal motivations. Cheers my friend. God bless and all the best.

[@ravindertalwar553]

LIFE IS JUST TO LOVE AND TO BE LOVED ❤️❤️ LOVE ALONE CAN CONQUER THE WORLD 🌎

[@arminbolouri8083]

As always great content!

[@FigureOnAStick]

Quite simply, land that is owned was siezed and hoarded by brigands. Look back in lamd provenance and you will find the find it originates with a claim of ownership that could not be contested by reason or force. No one has a right to own land. Anyone who argues they do is coming to you with a threat. What we should grant is the right to the use of land in a way that maintains and strengthens its health and productivity, as determined by those who actually live there.

[@FigureOnAStick]

@@a.k8069 Thanks for your response, that certainly is a tricky question that I don't have a direct answer to. My own thinking is that the earth's land is a commons for all, every human being in a state of both need of its use but lacking any legitimate claim to private ownership. For human-scale communities to thrive, however there do need to be boundaries of access and appropriate use. These boundaries have to restrict those who are unwilling or unable to be accountable for how their actions impact the land and other people also making use of that space both in the present and in the future. In short, the goal of the rules should be to maintain the use-value of the place in the most accessible way possible, but not so accessible that those who have eyes only to exploit or disrupt its value will have a significant negative impact. In this respect, a city street, for example, benefits from free access for individual people and non-invasive businesses, while a common pasture would have to be restricted to herders willing and able to prevent their livestock from overgrazing. How the boundaries themselves are drawn are less about locality but about ascent to terms of use. When I say "by the people who actually live there" it is a short hand for the general principle that people with direct, physical experience of the land and the effects of land use have important knowledge about best practices specific to the site that is not substitutable by expertise or other forms of institutional knowledge. "Only" is probably a bit strong, because expert knowledge is also important when making good decisions about complex systems, but you really do need both Thinking this way, I am drawing from Elanor Ostram's book "Governing the Commons" www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998, which is summarized by her 8 principles for managing a commons earthbound.report/2018/01/15/elinor-ostroms-8-rules-for-managing-the-commons/. I'm no expert on the topic, but that is probably the most comprehensive book you'll be able to find of communal economics that has already proven its mettle in practice.

[@mohammadsohail1244]

6 Chains of Economic Circle 1 Raw Material 2 Production 3 Distributor 4 Wholesaler 5 Vendor 6 Consumer. Usurious loans break the economic chain and break the family system.

[@derbezacesanchez3779]

The people who write the laws or rules are the first ones to know how to profit and or abuse them.

[@Vj_soni]

I didn't understood many things, how can I understand it better?

[@viljaangelica]

Thank you🙏🐲 #excellent #mustsee

[@michaelanthonygutierrez]

Thanks 🙏🏻

[@AnitaCorbett]

If we don’t practice our rights against super capitalism and it’s evils we stand to lose much of what the spirit of being human stands for ‼️

[@finddeniro]

Klaus Schabee ?

[@TankGump96]

We can agree fairness is a great thing....or can we?

[@pauladams1829]

Squeezing out profits for the few makes conditions worse for workers and services worse for customers.

[@mrtienphysics666]

Might is right

[@goranmilicic3665]

La propriete, c'est le von - P.J. Prudhon

[@katejudson8907]

I'm only a few minutes in and am wondering how the protection of white priveldge is woven into this? May seem like a separate topic, but, since ' global expansion ' or territorial claims, over place, bodies, resources, it is deeply embedded in this code.

[@HorusHerotic]

If only we were more like the Maya! They shared land and everyone knows they almost always agreed, and when they didn't they settled their differences peacefully and amicably. 🙃

[@ncooty]

It seems as if "code" here clarifies nothing; it seems an attempt to make an idea sound more current or glamorous merely by referencing computers. At minimum, she needs to flesh out and specify the metaphor--i.e., make use of it, not merely repeat the term "code" as an incantation of modern relevance.

[@carlosnattera2644]

Colonialism=Capitalism

[@junkjunk2493]

wow , what a mess ... wait n watch

[@mns8732]

You go girlfriend!

[@danielhutchinson6604]

The problem with Capitalism is the Capital. Take the Money away, and the solutions are vastly simpler? Property is a concept that appears to have a short shelf life?

[@TheJayman213]

🚩

[@climatebabes]

Capitalism causes suffering. All suffering we experience is caused by banks.

[@fernandocubas8655]

If you take away the incentives human won’t achieve any progress the idea that shouldn’t exist is ridiculous

[@TheVietnameseDevil]

😎

[@TheShoshi99]

The notion of indigenous rights to land is completely failing in Israel-Palestine

[@ncooty]

Personally, I'd have preferred a bit more structure (e.g., via a general taxonomy, such as exclusionary rights, usufruct rights, etc., given that her meandering presentation fit neatly within existing types). Also, the main question or thesis seemed amorphous. She didn't seem to have a clear direction other than "to problematize", which is a problem. Was this meant to be philosophical, conceptual, and culturally independent? If so, a definition of property is simply stipulated. Was it meant to be deontological (discussed here as rights) or teleological (discussed here as consequences)? She just seemed to hop around and blur everything together. I found this muddled and unhelpful, though I know most social "scientists" would reply with their favorite fig leaf: that the topic itself is "messy".

[@sheikhmahmoudgedeltv293]

Why don't you consider the case where the person who enliven a portion of free land as the one deserving to own it. It was just a wild free land which has been unclaimed Thank you

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Slaves from Africa were also unclaimed economic resources. Should those resources be monopolized by capitalists?

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@PoliticalEconomy101 Slaves are just forced unpaid labor. The slaveholder cares for his property but it depreciates as humans can't live forever. Are you going to be the one who regulates monopolies? Who is in favor of monopolies?

[@alexwilkinson4896]

@@tuckerbugeater slave holders DID NOT care for their slaves. This is a proven fact. Why did so many of them die before they hit 40? They were overworked in horrific conditions, malnourished and downtrodden.

[@NeoCynic1]

We own the Harvard Mouse.

[@alisonyahna8041]

This is horrific… Nothing sacred nothing cannot be turned into the god of the West who’s name is money

[@FleetaFleegalBuckFut]

666th like

[@NewEconomicThinking]

👹

[@oriocoookie]

a bit naive at best biased and foolish in fact

[@L154N4LG4IB]

Well if you’re more knowledgeable on the subject than her then by all means point out the truth of the story. Otherwise it may be you who’s the biased, naive, and foolish type.

[@oriocoookie]

@@L154N4LG4IB dont be upset. Prove me wrong (or right) and we both will learn something. I will not comment on the oversimplification of a lot of the things she says but ask you this - where is she going with this? what is her ultimate goal?

[@watching99134]

@@oriocoookie Lol you're the one who made the original criticism you're the one who has to do more than ask general questions

[@oriocoookie]

@@watching99134 i made a statement .... didnt ask a question ..... she is a little more than a total dingbat ... she ought just come out and support her(totally moronic from my point of view) ideology and not try to package it as some sort insight into "free market / capitalist" system ...

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

I agree with the free and wide use of ideas. I did get US patent 3890161 DIODE ARRAY for the 1973 version of my idea. When the patent was issued in 1975 I paid a patent marketing company to find interested people. It had a weak response. I also filed for a corporation. I did not like the arm twisting of that so I walked out. So I learned by experience that patents and corporations are unsuitable for science that should be open and free for the betterment of civilization. I believe there should be a tamper resistant and time stamped public repository of creative statement documents. This would be a good first step leading to initially unknown further action. Here's my standard section on the patent: l was granted US patent 3890161 DIODE ARRAY, for a refrigerator that absorbs thermal energy in an insulated compartment and releases a corresponding amount of electrical energy using the intermediary of rectified Johnson noise (the Brownian motion of electrons) aggregated by a multitude of consistantly aligned metal-insulator-metal diodes. [Not exactly the abstract] It has been open for anyone to develop since 1992. I had a report of a working very low power prototype in ~ 1980 but l naively lost the prototype. It was made from a chip containing ~1400 gold pillars abutting N type GaAs. A U VA Charlottesville department made it for 1-3 THz frequencies. They could not align very small diodes well enough in 1980 to make ~1 um dia diodes individually so they made them in patches. A lot of the department formed Virginia Diodes Inc nearby. I found a lab that put conductive paste on the face of one patch chip to bring all the diodes in parallel and test it in an oil bath in a sealed test chamber. They went out of business but I thought they should keep the prototype because they had the test chamber and could make special arrangements. I lost contact with them and never received the prototype. U VA refused to sell me any more patch chips and stopped making them. I am not interested in any more patents. The diode array patent gives me enough of a reputation. The exclusionary power of patents breaks up synergistic benefits to civilization. Wide exposure to the public renders invention concepts unpatentable. Public participation is needed for wide scientific, general, and spiritual discourse, efficient use and efficient further development. Other teams have built low power prototypes of their concepts too so the overall energy concept is likely to emerge for the betterment of civilization. I am inviting people, mostly unknown to me, throughout the world to use mass initiative and coalese into many teams that are independent, synergistic well dispersed and minimally biased to expediently research and develop proof-of-concept and initial-recipe-establishing prototypes for the thermary, metal-insulator-metal diode and Au-GaAs (or Au-InSb) diode concepts. Reliable nanofabrication requires the smooth and well practiced operation of expensive delicate equiment which is best done by the specialists already at the nanofabrication foundry who may require payment. The development teams may be able to gather ~$100K each from crowdsourced grants administered by sophisticated people to pay the specialists.The specialists and development teams need to keep a lot of people informed of their progress and setbacks along the way for accurate mass scientific and general understanding. Cultural pressure should be ready to keep early developers from using early positioning to exclude other developers. Do you think it is reasonable to consume a lot of energy by cyclicly moving a large sealed robust container of water (a large thermal mass) back and forth between a stove and a freezer both requiring electrical power? You aren't making any permenent changes as you alternately melt and freeze the water inside. The container and its water aren't becoming less orderly as the exercise continues. The nreasonableness of this waste is a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics was determined from careful studies of steam engine efficiency by Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot and began to be a strong science paradigm during the mid 1800s euphoria of progress in steam engines and industrialization. Steamships could mostly voyage on-corse on-time regardles of nature's awesome winds and currents. Mechanical power became cheap and without manure. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington popularized the idea that the second law of thermodynamics, with its consequence that the universe would die of thermal stagnation, was a proof of God and more fundamental than James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Powerful generators and electric motors were developed in the mid 1800s leading to practical electrical distribution of steam power. Please consider a thought experiment device that may work as an example because it avoids the failing parts of (1)Maxwell's demon thought experiment device which fails because the demon needs intense light and (2)Feynman's paddlewheel, pawl, and ratchet wheel thought experement device which Feynman clamed would fail to rectify random thermal motion. [Failure because of thermally moving pawls may be fixable with multiple pawls]. Feynman also claimed that, by extension, diodes would not rectify the Brownian motion of mobile electrons. [Diodes may work on their own merits]. However, he accepted that small paddlewheels would move in response to the Brownian motion of the molecules of a fluid they are immersed in. The purpose of the thought experiment device below is to create self powered thermal diversification. The thought experiment device is impractical but easy to visualize and check for mechanical workability. It is not too deeply into the nanometer scale realm. Sketch made with keyboard characters: COLD ROOM ())--:WALL:-->> HOT ROOM Key ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) : : = Axle tunnel going through a wall. >> = Lumped friction element Please visualize two roome full of air separated by a very thin wall that allows the rooms to hold their heat independently with minor leakage through the wall. The wall is thin to delicately support billions of separate nanometer scale short axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the rooms can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the wall, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements convert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. Brownian motion (a nanometer scale effect) turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or counterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. The committed, linked, and functional roles of the paddlewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two rooms without adding external energy. Water in a sealed container could be endlessly cycled without cost between melting from the heat of the lumped friction elements' side and freezing from the cold of the paddlewheels' side. Here is the thermary: The thermary is one of several probably practical concepts. It mainly consists of two electrodes closely face to face (~1 micrometer) in a vacuum wired to an external DC electrical load. The face of the [Emitter] electrode is covered with a uniform array of LaB6 tipped small diameter carbon nanotubes grown straight out. The face of the [Absorber] electrode is covered with small scale graphine flake char. [Rice U 2014] Thermal energy mobilized unattached electrons will tend to free themselves outward from the emitter tips and drift at ~1 million meters / second @ 25 millivolts (thermal electron energy @ 20 C) to the absorber which tends to collect them. A negative charge accumulates on the absorber. This repels oncoming electrons slowing their forward drift, cooling them. The absorber electrode charge is simultaneously the repelling cooling and the external electrical circuit voltage. The drift current and external wire route current are the same. The DC electrical power consumed by the electrical load depends on the load resistance. Thermal energy absorption always equals the electrical yield. Wire resistance is a practical loss not a true loss so lt is overcome by added thermary output. The extra cooling balances the heat given off by the wire loss. The performance of the device is expected to be modest in the beginning but improve rapidly. Even early devices are expected to last a long time. There is little place for obsolence if the first installed thermary works adequately. They will withstand being short circuited indefinately up to electromigration limits. As civilization advances inventors become less able to do-it-all so inventions are stranded in an undevelopment desert. Aloha Charles M Brown lll Kilauea Kauai HI 96754

[@CuchBe]

Awesome!

[@byronskoretz7650]

Who cares? Look at what the EU and the USA did to Russian property and assets. A law only works if both sides abide by its principles.

[@googlepigs7027]

You are not going deep enough. "Law", is nothing more than physical force, dressed up as something fancy and respectable. Its nothing more than the old saying, "might makes right". To people that really care, and really want to evolve; we have to recognize that all this is really nothing more than a dressed up and disguised expression of our more primitive, base, animal nature: and recognized as such, must be left on the trash heap of discarded aspects of ourselves, that were vile, violent, unjust, and hopefully no longer necessary, negative traits of of ourselves - like slavery or racism - that grew out of our repugnant evolution from animals, to the higher, more intelligent, more refined, and moral beings we hope to be in our futures. THE TRUTH: In fact, no one "owns" anything here. All things are ephemeral, and all things are without "owners"; unless those "owners", are willing to commit some form of violence, to enforce their ownership. THEREFORE: Anyone who purports to call themselves a good, moral or decent person, cannot possibly advocate such antiquated, violent things as "private property", "property rights", or ownership, in the abstract, "legalistic" way those things have been justified so far.

[@rafaelalas7679]

🌎☀️☁️ ☀️☁️ 🧲💤 ~3 registerable displays by continuum; by 💯AN💯 individual; retained(#🤔) by other individuals(#🤔) within an immediate time span within one setting establishes independence amongst individuals🧲💤 🧲💤 Touching surfaces with ones palm,knuckle or tips of fingers as gliding as displaying may stabilize focus & comfort🧲💤