Can we own something or only nothing?
It strikes me as immediately obvious that one can possess objects in the world, by possess I mean control and use in a manner that is befitting to the owners, for surely it is a social custom and economic standpoint that by 'mixing our labour' with nature we impart a ownership as payment for an improvement upon nature. This is a Locke-ian theory from his 'Two treatise of Goverment', which argues that we inherit our body as one's own and by using said body when hunting by killing a the rabbit you gain ownership of the meat because you expended energy and labour in order to acquire the meat. This represents an extension of what is intrinsically yours (the body) and so long as the food is not wasted and that one is not consumed by greed, it becomes a fair stake and the notion of property feels justified.
But the same is said for those who farm the land; they reap what they sow and what is sown belongs to the reaper. In short property is what is produced from ones own labour, any excess can be traded accordingly and so an economy forms. What followed from this is a currency that in turn buys labour; be it food, salt or gold. This makes the employers in essence the owner of the time and effort of the person labouring.
The whole notion of this civil structure is a drive at stepping out of a state of war with another, (described much like Hobbes as brutish and cruel) and enter into the social contract of civility, allowing safer and stronger guarantees that can be enforced by public law. For instance, if someone steals your money he breaks the contract he has signed. By living in that country and previously agreeing to its laws, an agent of the contract (police say) can enforce the agreed punishment on the thief and thus, not only is a financial economy balanced, but a social economy is also balanced, a loss restored and a wrong righted.
Now in principle this all sounds fine, it seems equality in liberty for all, a fair exchange and a chance to earn ones keep.. It provides incentive to be productive for the society in which they live. If someone kills your rabbit, there are plenty of rabbits left in the field to eat, and all the above falls neatly on paper. But the titanic looked very neat on paper, this did not mean that the ship in practice did not sink, its teleology was inadequate, its goal unattainable, its design flawed, such is the case of the concept of ownership.
Tyranny dressed as liberty inherently follows from this aspect of the economical social contract and shows its spots when currency buys labour. This attempt at putting a price tag on effort (which is utterly immaterial and unfounded) is not within the realm of fair trade. One hours work could be worth 10 pence or 10 million pounds; any scale can be applied. Also a bias of wealth inherently creates slaves, in which the master increase his wealth but provides no labour, while the work force labours but gains no further wealth; for what is paid by the master is never over what is profitable for himself, and usually the profit margin is horrifically high.
Two workers in a field with the same tasks, one strong and one weak, the stronger man expends less effort for lifting, ploughing and sowing seeds, the weaker man expends more effort for the same tasks, but is paid the same. The phenomenological experience of the two cannot be measured or scaled for it is a private affair that is ultimately outside an economy due to the internal nature of struggle. It may well be the case that the strong toils more and the weaker man glides with ease in his chores, the point is we cannot know. But this scepticism is brushed over for it reveals the syndical element in buying labour, it places value in what is priceless.
But what is most sinister is that, if money buys labour then the money provider owns that person for the hours assigned, in essence creating a possession of a persons body, which inherently belongs to the labourer. Paid labour is the prostitution of being and we sell ourselves very cheap when the question of 'how can we eat?' hooves in view. What liberty can there be when a economy forces the majority, even an individual to sell his time and energy to improve the wealth of another? Freedom for the few and labour for many...at lest in full on slavery theirs an honesty about the state of affairs.
This slavery creates a vast wealth for those who own, and this is not a analytic conclusion but a fact of the world, when we see that the 1% owns 40% of the world assets as of 2000 (the World Distribution of Household Wealth. James B. Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks, and Edward N. Wolff. 5 December 2006). Thus it stands that a contradiction occurs as the notion employment becomes clear, if property comes about that we mix our labour with the project, then the rewards are yours but when we pay another for labour and still claim the rewards your, there is no mixing of labour and thus the rewards are not yours, its only economics that makes the rewards the employer not employee.
If wealth and currency naturally follow from non symmetric distribution of property then we cannot own something, we can own nothing, otherwise we create unethical and elitist hierarchies, benefiting the few and enslaving the poor, alas such is he way of things today.
By Tom Moon
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Something/Nothing' Issue 24
