| This question <373|14> overall <2|4> Frosty: <2|76>. |
| Question 22: Are there things which can be useful without being in the exclusive possession of the user? |
| [3] Frosty: For many things, you need to have possession of the things themselves in order for it to be useful, but, I can think of one thing that can be useful without the exclusive possession of it. The thing to which I am referring is MONEY. In modern society, a great majority of people possess credit cards or checking accounts. These have become the alternatives to carrying money. Although money is not actually in possession, the purchasing power still exists. The payments of money for these purchases are deferred (when using a credit card), or automatically withdrawn from a bank account (when using checks). So in conclusion, money can be useful without actually having possession of it at the time of use. Even maybe one day, the possession of money will become obsolete, but the usefulness of it will remain in existence through alternative methods, such as credit cards or checks. |
| Hans: Money is the most basic example of something which can not be used jointly but whose benefits accrue to its owner alone. Your answer is therefore located exactly on the opposite end of the spectrum of what I was asking for. You picked up on the countereffects which the rigidity of private property rights calls forth and lost sight of why these countermeasures became necessary in the first place. Money is so exclusive that a system of deferred payments (by checks or credit card) has been created to prevent that every business transaction is slowed down or hindered by the necessity of handing over cash at the same time. This is Marx's function of money as means of payment, described in Section 3b of Chapter Three of Capital. This creates the appearance as if money were not really a constraint. But these deferred payments are carefully organized in such a way that they create the needed flexibility without compromising ownership rights. |
| To say it again, from a different angle: If you draw on your credit line, then you are using other people's money, which means that these other people cannot use this money for themselves. They will therefore probably charge you interest for it, and they have taken very specific precautions to ensure that you will pay the money back to them. And they may decide to no longer extend credit to you, in which case you are out of luck. Ask those who do not have established credit or who live in neighborhoods where they cannot get mortgages on their homes, or anyone who ever tried to rent a car without a credit card, or someone who needs medical care but cannot pay for it, etc. |
| [3] Frosty: (datestring)Mon, 9 Jan 1995 20:15:18 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I must have misunderstood the question so I am giving it another try. |
| Hans: If you say something like this it would be helpful if you would elaborate how you had misunderstood the question. Because if you misunderstand it chances are others will too. My guess here is: you realize that I am after the basic principles buried in the use value itself, rather than social arrangements. |
| [3] Frosty: I believe that there are things which can be useful without being in the exclusive possession of the user. There are many examples. The first example is public transportation, such as the bus system. The bus system is available to anyone. There are no restrictions to the passenger, excluding the fare of course. One user cannot exclusively ride the bus alone without permitting others to ride. |
| Hans: But a bus can be full! I think you are on the right track, however. A computer program or a music recording can be copied and used by many without this affecting the utility of any individual user. On the contrary, individual users may gain if others know the same word processor so that they can exchange documents, or if others help debug the program, or if they can talk to others about the music. The telephone is another instance of something which you cannot use individually. If you are the only person connected to the telephone system, then the telephone is useless. The more people have telephones, the more useful is the telephone. |
| [3] Frosty: The second example is police protection. There are many policemen in one city. These people are here to protect all citizens. One person cannot exclusively possess the entire police protection service. Some may argue that if a policeman is protecting someone else, he or she is being taken away from others. But, there isn't only one police officer. There are many more who can give police protection. |
| Hans: An additional argument which you were perhaps thinking of here is that safe streets do not only benefit one but everybody. However your example is again not the clearest manifestation of the principle involved. After all, police protection has been privatized. In the United States one can find fenced-in exclusive residential communities which have their own police. A better example would be health: in order to protect yourself from contagious diseases you must protect everyone from contagious diseases. |
|
|
|||||